UC-NRLF 


'  m 


}f 


£*- 


-90 


REESE    LIBRARY 

OF   THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Received. ^J^a9jSdf^..iS8^£- 


Zs~/z° 


•&- 


Accessions  No.  d  o_ /_&?___       Shelf  No. 


C¥- 


*o 


/ 


NEW  LIGHT 


ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM, 


■ 


PRESENTED  IN  THREE  PARTS,  VIZ. 


I.  Believers  proved  to  be  the  only  proper  subjects  of  Chris- 
tian Baptism. 

II.  The  different  modes  of  administering  this  ordinance  in  use 

among  the  Churches  shown  to  be  valid. 

III.  Open  Communion  with  all  Evangelical  Christians  illus- 
trated and  defended. 


35Y  JABEZ  £HAt>WICK,  A.  M. 

Of  Genoa,  Cayuga  County,  N.  F. 

TT] 


Sixaoal^ 


PRINTED  BY  MACK  &  ANDRUS. 


1832. 


/& 


CONTENTS* 


INTRODUCTION. 


PART  I. 

Believers  proved  to  be  the  only  proper  subjects  of  Christian 
Baptism. 

CHAPTER  /.—Containing  the  argument  from  the  apostolick  commission  for  the 
baptism  of  believers  only. 

CHAP.  II.— The  baptism  of  John  shown  to  be  distinct  from  Christian  baptism, 
and  only  preparatory  to  it ;  yet  it  reflects  light  upon  the  present  question,  as 
it  was  applied  to  believers  only. 

CHAP.  in. — christian  baptiom  *hn\vn  to  have  been  instituted  by  Christ  during 
his  life  and  personal  ministry. 

CHAP.  IV. — The  various  attempts  to  include  infants  in  the  apostolick  commis- 
sion for  baptism,  considered  and  refuted. 

CHAP.  V.— -Circumcision  shown  to  be  of  perpetual  obligation  to  the  Jews,  and 
hence  baptism  cannot  be  considered  as  a  substitute. 

CHAP.  VL—The  fact  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  set  up,  or  the  New  Tes- 
tament  dispensation  introduced  during  Christ's  life  and  personal  ministry,  par- 
ticularly illustrated  and  proved. 

CHAP.  VII.— The  memorable  passage,  Acts  ii.  38—41,  particularly  examined. 

CHAP.  VIII— -The  three  instances  of  the  baptism  of  a  household,  recorded  Acts 
xvi.  14, 15,  33,  and  I.  Cor.  i.  16,  particularly  examined. 

CHAP.  IX.— The  right  of  believers  only  to  baptism  confirmed  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  apostolick  churches. 

CHAP.  X.— Containing  an  examination  of  Mark  x.  13—16,  Rom.  xi.  16, 17,  and 
I.  Cor.  vii.  14. 

CHAP.  XL— The  nature  of  positive  institutions  illustrated  and  established. 

CHAP.  XII. — The  Abrahamick  covenant,  though  a  gracious  covenant,  or  a  dis- 
pensation of  the  covenant  of  grace ;  yet,  shown  to  be  distinct  from  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  itself. 

CHAP.  XIII. — The  argument  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  grounded  on  the  interest 
which  they  are  supposed  to  have  in  the  promise  of  the  Abrahamick  covenant, 
considered  and  refuted. 


CHAP.  XIV.— The  inconsistency  between  the  belief  and  practice  of  Pedobap- 
tists,  respecting  the  church-membership  of  infants,  exposed. 

CHAP.  XV.  Containing  additional  evidence  that  there  is  such  a  change  in  the 
constitution  of  the  church,  under  the  gospel,  as  excludes  the  membership  of 

CHAP.  XVI.— The  argument  in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  from  ecclesiastical 
history,  examined,  and  shown  to  be  insufficient  and  inconclusive. 

C'HAP.  XVII—  Containing  remarks  on  female  communion,  and  the  change  o* 
the  Sabbath.  a      - 


PART  II, 

The  different  modes  of  administering  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
in  use  among  the  churches  showu  to  be  valid. 

CHAP.  I— Containing  an  examination  of  the  Greek  word,  baptizo. 

CHAP.  //.—-Containing  an  exa   ination  of;  the  Greek  word,  low,  as  used  to  de- 
note the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

CHAP.  III. — The  figurative  import  of  baptism  examined, 

CHAP.  1  v.— -The  circumstances  attending  the  administration  of  baptism  con- 
sidered. 

CHAP.  V. — Containing  an  examination  of  the  argument  in  favour  of  immersion 
from  ecclesiastical  history. 

CHAP.   F/.— Concluding  arguments  in  favour  of  the  validity  of  all  modes  of 
baptism. 


PART   TIL 

Open  communion  with  all  evangelical  Christians  illustrated  and 
defended. 

CHAP.  I — The  subject  explained. 

CHAP    II. — Containing  the  nrgumont  for  open  communion   founded   on   tli$ 
Christian  ex,  erience  and  character. 

CHAP.  Ill  Containing  the  argument  for  open  communion  based  upon  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  mode  of  baptism  is  not  essential. 

CHAP.  IV. — Containing  the  argument  for  open  communion  based  upon  the  right 
and  privilege  of  private  judgement. 

CHAP.  V. — Containing  the  argument  for  open  communion  based  upon  the  con- 
sideration that,  although  baptism  was  manifestly  intended  to  precede,  in  the 
order  of  nature,  the  commemoration  of  Christ's  death  in  the  ordinance  of  the 
supper,  i  does  not  appear  that  we  have  a  warrant  to  insist  upon  it  as  m  in 
dispensable  prerequisite,  in  all  cases. 


INTRODUCTION.. 


The  question,  who  are  to  be  baptized,  has  ree  ived,  and 
continues  to  receive,  different  answers.  Some  affirm  that  be- 
lievers in  Jesus  are  the  only  proper  subjects  of  this  ordinance  ; 
others  insist  that  not  only  believers,  but  their  infant  children, 
or  households,  are  proper  subjects. 

It  is  obvious,  that  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  opinions,  and  of 
the  respective  practices  founded  thereon,  must  U*  wrong.  Ei- 
ther the  former  class  fail,  in  part,  to  do  what  Christ  bus  solemn- 
ly required  to  be  done  ;  or  the  latter  go  beyond  his  order,  and 
baptize  multitudes  who  do  not  come  within  the  compass  of 
their  commission. 

Taking  unauthorized  ground,  whether  it  be  done  by  the  one,  or 
the  other,  materially  alters  the  course  prescribed  by  our  Lord, 
and  deranges  the  order  which  belongs  to  his  kingdom. 

Not  that  I  would  represent  the  errour.  in  either  case,  as  fatal. 
There  are  doubtless  Christians  among  both  Baptists  and  Pe- 
dobaptists.  Nevertheless,  the  errour  of  the  one,  01  of  the  other., 
is  extremely  hurtful,  and  ought  to  be  relinquished. 

The  subject  of  Christian  baptism  is  one  of  great  practical  im- 
portance. This  is  evinced  by  many  considerations:  some  of 
which  are  the  following,  viz  :  its  being  a  positive  institution,  and 
one  of  the  two  Christian  sacraments,  or  New  Testament  ordinan- 
ces ;  its  being  a  tadge  of  discipleship,  and  a  door  of  entrance  into 
the  visible  church ;  its  forming,  of  course,  a  dividing  line  be- 
tween the  visible  kingdom  of  Christ  and  the  world;  its  being 
a  bond  of  union  among  Christian  professors  ;  and  its  laying  the 
baptized  under  peculiar  obligations  to  a  holv  life.  There  is,  al- 
so, a  peculiar  prominence  given  to  this  ordinance  in  all  the 
New  Testament  records.  * 

It  is  therefore,  as  above  stated,  a  subject  of  great  practical 
importance.  The  authority  and  glory  of  Christ"  ad  the  good 
of  Zion,  are  seriously  affected  by  thenianner  in  which  this  sub- 
ject is  viewed  and  treated. 

The  duty  and  proper  employment  of  Christians  is  to  obey 
the  precepts  of  Christ,  their  Lord  and  Master.     «  Ye  are  mv 

I* 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

friends,"  said  he,  "  if  ye  do  whatsoever  I  command  you.m 
Again  ;  "  he  that  hath  my  commandments  and  keepeth  them, 
he  it  is  that  loveth  me."  To  each  of  his  disciples,  he  says, "  fol- 
low me."  Moreover,  we  are  particularly  cautioned  and  warn- 
ed not  ct  to  take  from,"  nor  "  add  to  his  words."  It,  therefore, 
becomes  every  one,  and  especially,  every  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel, to  make  himself  acquainted  with  the  mind  of  Christ  con- 
cerning this  matter,  and  to  do  the  thing,  and  the  only  thing. 
which  he  has  enjoined. 

Christ  certainly  intended  that  infants  should,  or  should  not 
be  baptized.  And  he  has  either  commanded  that  they  should 
be  baptized,  or  he  has  not.  If  the  former  be  the  fact,  we  ought 
to  know  it:  and  if  the  latter,  we  ought  to  know  it,  and  act  ac- 
cordingly. 

Moreover,  whatever  be  the  will  of  Christ  in  relation  to  tins 
point,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  it  is  so  plainly  revealed, 
that  the  humble  and  honest  inquirer  may  discover  it.  It  \fbuld 
be  a  reflection  upon  him  and  upon  his  word,  to  say  that  his  will 
cannot  be  gathered  from  what  is  written. 

He  has,  surely,  not  left  this  matter  in  uncertainty.  He  has 
not  intrusted  the  business  of  legislating  thereon,  either  to  his 
church,  or  to  his  ministers  He  is  Lord  over  his  own  hou^e 
and  kingdom*  The  Father  testified  from  the  cloud  of  glory, 
u  This  is  my  beloved  son,  hear  him."  No  one,  therefore,  who 
is  not  inspired  by  his  spirit,  has  a  right  ta  make  laws  to  bind 
the  consciences  of  men,  or,  in  any  measure,  to  lessen,  or  en- 
large his  appointments. 

If  we  admit  the  scriptures  to  be  a  sufficient  and  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  we  must,  (to  be  consistent,)  allow 
that  they  contain  clear  and  satisfactory  light  upon  this  subject. 
Consequently,  if>  we  err,  it  is  because  we  do  not  thoroughly  ex- 
amine and  understand  the  scriptures,  and  the  fault  is  our  own* 

Christians  ought  to  be  more  thoroughly  awake  to  this  subject. 

Much,  indeed,  has  been  said  and  written  on  it.  But  so  long 
as  errour  prevails,  and  the  followers  of  Jesus  are  divided,  and 
the  church  marred  and  lent  asunder;  the  subject  should  still 
excite  a  deep  and  prayerful  interest,  and  lead  to  a  candid  and  la- 
borious investigation:  not  with  a  view  to  gain  the  mastery ;  but 
to  find  out  the  real  will  of  Jesus.  How  shall  errour  be  rooted 
up,  and  the  deplorable  evils  which  exist  in  relation  to  this  sub- 
ject be  removed,  except  by  honest  inquiry,  and  diligent  re- 
search ?  and  by  a  willing  submission  to  the  testimony  of  the 
scriptures  ? 

In  this  investigation,  it  is  of  high  importance  to  be  willing  to 
receive  light  from  any  instrument  whom  the  Lord  may  raise 
up  for  that  purpose— i.  e.  from  any  one  whom  the   Lord  may 


INTRODUCTION  7 

assist  to  give  a  right  construction  of  his  word,  and  to  point 
out  the  good  old  way  which  had  been  forsaken.  God  often  rai* 
ses  up  men  to  expound  his  word,  and  correct  prevailing  er- 
rours,  from  quarters   which  would  have  been  least  expected. 

No  one  should  reject  the  light  which  may  be  reflected  upon 
the  subject,  through  pride  of  opinion,  or  partiality  to  his  own 
sect,  or  order ;  because  it  does  not  proceed  from  them,  or  come 
in  the  way  of  his  choosing.  But  when,  upon  due  examination, 
the  doctrine  dvanced  is  found  to  be  verily  true,  it  should  b« 
embraced,  from  whatever  quarter   t  comes. 

Believing  that  I  have  obtained  new  light  upon  this  subject, 
not  by  means  of  any  new  revelation,  but  from  the  holy  scriptures, 
I  s'  icit  the  attention  of  the  publick  to  what  I  have  to  say,  al- 
though I  am  conscious  of  my  unworthiness.  Though  I  might 
have  been  the  last  irom  whom  any  thing  could  have  been  •  e;s> 
pected  that  would  elucidate  this  subject ;  yet  the  Lord  can  work 
by  just  such  means.  And  his  name  alone  be  praised  for  the 
knowledge  which  I  tiust  he  has  given  me. 

It  will  be  seen,  at  once,  that  if  the  scheme  here  proposed  and 
adv;  cated  be  correct,  viz  that  believers  are  the  only  proper 
subjects  of  baptism,  but  the  mode  of  administration  is  not  es- 
sential, its  adoption  will  tend  to  remove  a  mighty  wall  of  sepa- 
ration which  has  long  existed  between  two  great  bodies  of  evan- 
gelical christians,  the  Baptists  and  Pedobabtists.  Each  of 
these  bodies  must  yield  something  to  the  other :  The  Pedo- 
baptists  must  give  up  the  baptism  of  infants,  and  the  Baptists 
must  give  up  the  principle  that  immersion  is  the  only  valid 
baptism;  and  then  the  separating  wall  is  removed.  they  can, 
then,  without  any  embarrassment,  come  around  the  table  of. 
their  common  Lord. 

This  is  the  line  on  which,  I  am  persuaded,  they  ought  and 
?)v:st  eventually  meet.  For  both  belong  to  Christ,  and  the  form 
of  baptism  used  by  each  is  valid  ;  therefore  the  one  ought  not 
to  say  to  the  other,  you  may  not  eat  with  me  at  the  table  of  Je- 
sus ;  but  both  ought  to  sit  down  together  end  celebrate  his  dy- 
ing love.  It  highly  becomes  these  sections  of  the  church  to 
give  up  their  respective  errours,  and  to  receive  each  other  in 
the  Lord,  as  Christ  hath  received  them,  to  the  glory  of  God. 

While  I  am  constrained,  for  reasons  hereafter  stated,  to  take 
the  ground  of  anti-pedobaptism,  I  cannot  insist  on  immersion 
as  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptism  ;  and  hence  exclude  all  from 
communion  who  have  not  been  immersed.  My  stopping  here, 
I  am  sensible,  exposes  me  to  censure  from  the  Baptists,  as  my 
giving  up  infant  baptism  does  from  the  Pedobaptists.  1  have 
not  the  satisfaction  to  please  either,  although  I  extend  the  hanoJ 
of  charitv  to  both* 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

But  I  am  neither  to  believe,  nor  to  write,  to  please  men.  My 
object  should  be,  and  is,  to  elicit  and  defend  the  truth  ;  and  to 
his  own  master  each  of  us  must  stand,  or  fall. 

The  propositions  which  I  shall  undertake  to  illustrate  and  de- 
fend, are  these  three,  viz  : 

I.  Believers  are  the  only  proper  subjects  of  Christian  Bap- 
tism. 

II  The  different  modes  of  administering  this  ordinance  in 
use  among  the  churches,  are  valid. 

III.  Open  communion  with  all  evangelical  Christians,  is  a 
duty  and  privilege. 

Follow  me  patiently,  dear  reader,  in  the  defence  of  these 
propositions,  and  judge  of  my  arguments  and  illustrations  in  the 
light  of  the  holy  scriptures,  and  pray  that  you  may  be  enlighten- 
ed to  know  the  Redeemer's  will. 


„  V" ©in™       'A 
foSIVEBSITT: 


BELIEVERS  PROVED  TO  BE  THE  ONLY  PROPER  SUBJECTS  OF 
CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Containing  the  argument  from  the  apostolick  commission  for  ilif 
baptism  oj  believers  only. 

The  final  commission  which  our  Lord  gave  to  his  apostle^ 
as  recited  by  Matthew,  Chap,  xxviii,  19,  20,  is  in  these  words: 
"  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost; 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded you  :  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end 
of  the  world." 

He  had,  previously,  sent  them  to  preach  the  kingdom  of  God 
to  the  cities  and  towns  of  Israel.  And  he  had  also,  previously, 
made  many  disciples,  whom  the  apostles,  by  his  order,  baptized. 

But,  now,  they  were  bidden  to  go  and  make  disciples  of  all 
nations^  and  baptize  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and 
Spirit. 

This  commission,  unquestionably,  extends  to  ail  ordinary 
ministers^  and  contains  the  warrant  for  the  administration  of 
baptism 

And  the  plain  import  of  it  is,  that  they  were  first  to  teach 
and  then  baptize  such  as  should  believe  their  doctrine.  There 
is  no  order  to  baptize  any  till  they  were  taught.  And  the 
qualification  which  was  to  piecede  baptism  manifestly  implies 
something  more  than  simply  being  taught,  viz. a  cordial  reception 
of  the  word.  It  is  plain  from  the  passage  itself,  (especially  as 
it  stands  in  the  Greek)  and  from  what  precedes  and  follows 
m  the  gospel  records,  that  our  Lord  did  not  mean  that  hj$, 


10  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ministers  should  baptize  promiscuously,  after  having  announced 
their  message,  without  any  regard  to  the  effect  produced.  They 
were  commissioned  to  teach  the  nations  with  a  view  to  their 
conversion,  and.  when  converted,  they  were  to  be  baptized.  Hence 
the  following  words,  which  describe  the  scene,  in  part,  that 
passed  on  the  day  of  pentecost,  under  the  sermon  of  Peter, 
Furnish  a  plain  comment  on  this  commission :  "  Repent  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you,"  &c.  "  Then  they  that  gladly  re- 
ceived his  word  were  baptized " 

But  the  tense  >f  this  commission  is  more  clear  and  definite 
as  it  stands  in  the  original  Greek.  The  Greek  word  u  matheu- 
sate,"  rendered  in  English,  "  teach,"  signifies  to  disciple,  or  to 
make  disciples.  Thi*  rendering,  no  one,  who  can  construe 
Greek,  will  dispute.  It  is  universally  admitted  by  the  learned 
on  both  sides  The  commission,  then,  runs  thus:  "Go  and 
make  disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  i.  e.  the  disciples 
whom  they  should  make  by  teaching  and  preaching  the  gospel ; 
or,  they  were  to  baptize  the  nations  when  disc  pled.  Nothing 
can  be  plainer  than  that  they  were  to-  make  disciples  of  the 
nations  first,  and  then  baptize  them.  The  order  to  baptize  ex- 
tends no  further  than  to  the  disciples  made  by  teaching.  We 
cannot  apply  baptism  to  other  subjects  without  altering  and  en* 
larging  tlie  commission,  which  we  have  no  right  to  do> 

It  is  a  plain  matter  of  fact,  that  infants  are  not  named  in  this 
commission,  as  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  upon  the  faith  of 
their  parents,  nor  is  there  any  thing  said  that  implies  that  they 
have  a  right  to  this  ordinance.  The  order  was  to  baptize  disci* 
pies,  or  believers  ;  and  here  it  terminates.  Yes,  my  brethren, 
it  positively  terminates  here  There  is  not  a  syllable  pertain* 
ing  to  the  baptism  of  any  besides  disciples. 

The  apostles,  in their  former  commission,  had  been  limited  to 
the  nation  of  Israel ;  but  now  they  were  direc  ed  to  go  and  dis- 
ciple all  notions ;  i.e.  to  make  converts  of  them,  through  the 
attending  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  then  they  were  to  in- 
itiate  them  into  the  visible  kingdom  of  Jesus  by  baptism.  Hence 
the  evangelist  Mark,  in  reciting  this  commission,  uses  these 
words:  chap.  xv.  15, 16.  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 
This  wording  of  the  commission  is  equally  definite  with  the 
other ;  showing  thn  proper  subjects  of  baptism  to  be  believers 
only.  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved." — 
This  contains  authority  for  the  baptism  of  none  but  believers. 
To  say,  as  Pedobaptists  generally  do,  that  it  relates  merely  to, 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  11 

-adults,  and,  therefore,  does  not  affect  the  case  of  infants,  is  at 
once  to  admit,  that  it  contains  no  authority  for  infant  baptism. 

But  if  infant  baptism  be  a  duty,  we  certainly  have  a  tight  to 
look  for  the  expression  of  Christ's  will  in  relation  thereto,  in 
the  commission  which  he  gave  to  baptize.  And  the  fact  that  it 
is  not  contained,  either  in  the  final  commission  or  in  any  pre- 
vious commission  which  he  gave  his  disciples  for  baptism,  goes 
very  far,  (to  say  th«  least,)  to  show  that  the  practice  is  wrong. 
Unless  something  very  explicit  in  favour  of  the  baptism  of  infants 
can  be  found  elsewhere,  (which,  however,  is  not  the  case,)  we 
ought  to  conclude  at  once,  that  it  is  not  the  will  of  Christ  that 
they  should  be  baptized.  It  would  be  so  perfectly  natural  for 
the  Lord  Jesus,  as  the  New  Testament  lawgiver,  when  appoint- 
ing this  ordinance,  to  determine  the  proper  subjects  of  it,  that 
if  infants  were  intended  to  be  baptized,  we  must  reasonably  con- 
clude, tney  would  have  been  mentioned  in  this  commission.  It 
is  unaccountable  that  they  are  not  mentioned,  if  indeed  they 
are  to  be  baptized.  To  say  that  the  principle  was  settled  be- 
fore, in  the  practice  of  circumcision  is  not  relieving  the  difficul- 
ty ;  because,  as  I  shall  show,  the  principle  was  not  settled 
therein  ;  and  even  if  it  had  been,  it  would  have  been  reasona- 
ble to  expect  a  recognition  thereof  in  this  commission.  So  im- 
portant an  article  would  not  have  been  omitted. 

Especially,  have  we  a  right  to  look  for  the  expression  of 
Christ's  will  in  this  commission,  if  he  intended  infants  should  be 
baptized,  as  this  is  a  positive  institution,  which,  of  course,  is  not 
based  upon  a  previous  moral  fitness  in  the  thing  itself,  but 
rests  wholly  on  his  will  and  pleasure;  and  hence  does  not  ad- 
mit of  inference  and  analogy  like  moral  precepts  The  com- 
mission, in  this  case,  is  the  very  instrument  which  must  be 
expected  to  contain  the  rule  of  administration. 

If  Christ  had  not  instituted  baptism,  we  could  not  have  infer- 
red the  duty  of  practising  it  from  any  moral  precept  contained 
in  the  Old  Testament,  or  inculcated  by  himself,  nor  from  any 
ancient  custom,  or  rite,  whatever.  Whether  there  should  be 
such  an  ordinance,  depended  wholly  upon  his  will ;  and  of 
course,  it  depended  wholly  upon  his  will  how  far  this  rite  should 
be  applied.  It  is  therefore  but  just  and  reasonable  to  conclude 
that,  if  he  meant  it  should  be  applied  to  infants,  he  would  have 
given  instructions  to  that  effect.  And  his  not  having  done  so, 
naturally  leads  us  to  conclude  that  he  did  not  intend  it  should  be 
applied  to  them.  To  induce  a  belief  that  they  are  proper  sub- 
jects of  this  ordinance,  when  the  commission  authorizes  merely 
the  baptism  of  disciples,  or  professed  believers,  there  must  be 
something  positive  produced  from  some  other  part  of  scripture  ; 


12  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

a  iC  thus  saith  the  Lord"  which  will  indubitably  settle  the  ques^ 
tion      But  this  cannot  be  done,  as  I  shall  hereafter  show 

Instead  ot  there  being  any  thing  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  the  construction  which  I  have 
given  of  the  commission  is  confirmed  by  the  previous  history  of 
baptism,  during  the  ministry  of  John,  his  predecessor;  and  dur- 
ing his  own  publick  ministry  ;  and  by  the  subsequent  history  of 
this  ordinance  during  the  ministry  of  the  apostles. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Baptism  of  John  shown  to  be  distinct  from  Christian  Bap- 
tism, and  only  preparatory  to  it ;  yet  that  it  reflects  light  upon  the 
present  question  as  it  was  applied  to  believers  only. 

It  is  abundantly  manifest  that  the  introductory  baptism  of 
John  was  limited  to  adult  professors  of  repentance  and  faith' 
in  the  coming  Messiah.  I  do  not  recollect  ever  to  have  heard 
of  one,  who  seriously  maintained  that  John  baptized  infants. 
It  appears  to  be  universally  conceded,  that  he  baptized  only  such 
as  became  his  disciples  by  professing  the  repentance  which  he 
preached,  and  declaring  their  belief  that  the  long-expected  Mes- 
siah was  about  to  make  his  appearance  among  them. 

He  came  to  "  make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord  ^ 
to  announce  his  approach  ;  and  to  be  the  inspired  and  honour- 
ed instrument  of  pointing  him  out  to  the  people. 

Therefore,  although  there  are  good  reasons  for  believing 
that  his  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism  itself;  but  merely 
an  introductory  rite,  which  commenced,  and  ended,  with  him  ; 
yet  as  an  example  of  adult  baptism  merely,  it  reflects  light  up- 
on the  present  question.  The  practice  of  making  an  open  and 
pub  lick  distinction  among  the  members  of  the  Jewish  Church, 
and  of  admitting  select  individuals  from  among  those  who  were 
capable  of  being  taught  to  a  sacred  and  divinely  appointed  rite  ; 
and  that  with  an  express  view  of  making  "  ready  a  people  for 
the  Lord,"  commenced  with  him  ;  and  this  was  known  to  the 
apostles,  and  would  naturally  have  a  bearing  upon  the  subject 
of  Christian  baptism.  It  was  an  indication  that  this  also  be- 
longed to  select  individuals,  and  was  designed  to  make,  or  distin- 
guish those  who  were  called  out  of  the  world  to  be  the  acknowl- 
edged people  of  Christ.  His  baptism  being  confined  to  adults 
who  professed  repentance,  not  only  served  to  lead  the  way  to 
the  ready  understanding  and  reception  of  believers'  baptism  as 
instituted  by  Christ ;  but  it  occasioned  an  additional  necessity 
for  the  express  mention  of  infants,  if  he  had  intended  the  ordi- 
nance should  be  applied  to  them. 

While  the  baptism  of  John,  however,  manifestly  favours  the 
doctrine  now  advocated,  as  above  stated  j  the  following  reasons 

2 


14  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

will  show  that  it  was  distinct  from  the  baptism  instituted  by 
Christ.  J 

1.  It  is  evident  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  had  not  actually 
come  when  John  commenced  his  ministry  and  baptism ;  but 
what  he  said  and  did  was  mer  ly  preparatory  thereto.  There- 
fore, his  baptism  could  not  have  been  Christian  baptism  itself. 

2.  John  u  baptized  the  people  unto  repentance,  saying  that 
they  should  believe  on  him  that  should  come  after  him."  And 
although  this  was  Jesus,  as  the  event  proved,  he  did  not,  ia 
general,  direct  them  to  his  very  person.  His  commission  had 
nearly  expired  before  he  pointed  out  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  whom 
they  had  been  taught  to  expect  Therefore,  to  baptize  them 
upon  a  belief  that  the  Messiah  was  coming,  and  to  baptize  them 
upon  a  belief  that  Jesus  was  the  very  person,  were  manifestly 
different  things,  \lany  of  the  Jews  believed  that  the  Messiah 
was  speedily  coming,  who  rejected  the  claims  of  Jesus  of  Naz- 
areth. And  this  might  have  been  the  case  with  some  of  John's 
disciples.  Doubtless,  those  of  them  that  were  real  converts, 
acknowledged  Jesus  when  they  came  to  know  his  claims,  be- 
cause their  hearts  were  previously  prepared  therefor  by  divine 
grace.  But  it  is  probable  that  many  of  his  disciples  were  not 
true  converts,  although  they  professed  repentance  ;  and  these, 
like  other  impenitent  Jews,  probably  did  not  acknowledge  Je- 
sus to  be  the  Messiah  whom  they  had  been  expecting.  Their 
being  the  disciples  of  John,  evidently  did  not,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  make  them  the  disciples  of  Jesus  Christ.  Hence,  the 
baptism  of  the  former  was  distinct  from  that  of  the  latter,  and 
merely  introductory  to  it. 

3.  That  these  baptisms  were  distinct,  is  manifest  from  the 
fact  that  some  of  John's  disciples  were  re-baptized  as  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ.  Of  this  we  have  an  account  in  the  xix 
chap,  of  Acts,  verses  1 — 5.  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  while 
Apollos  was  at  Corinth,  Paul  having  passed  through  the  upper 
coasts  came  to  Ephesus,  and  finding  certain  disciples,  he  said 
unto  them,  have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed  ? 
And  they  said,  we  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be 
any  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  said  unto  them,  unto  what,  then,  were 
ye  baptized  ?  And  they  said,  unto  John's  baptism.  Then  said 
Paul,  John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance, 
saying  unto  the  people  that  they  should  believe  on  him  that 
should  come  after  him,  i.  e.  on  Christ  Jesus.  When  they 
heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 
Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  show  that  these  disciples 
tcere  not  re-baptized.  But  the  word  itself  plainly  shows  that  they 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  15 

were;  and  this  would  not  have  been  necessary,  nor  consistent, 
if  John's  baptism  and  Christ's  had  been  the  same. 

These  considerations  appear  to  me  sufficient  to  show  that 
John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism  ;  but  merely  intro- 
ductoiy  thereto:  yet  in  the  ways  before  mentioned,  it  reflect- 
ed light  upon  the  present  question. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  17 


CHAPTER  HI. 

"Christian  Baptism  shown  to  have  been  instituted  by  Christ  during 
his  life  and  personal  ministry. 

Some  time  after  John  had  entered  upon  his  ministry,  and 
had  baptized  many  to  repentance,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  pub- 
lick  ly  entered  upon  his  ;  and  to  do  honour  to  John  as  his  fore- 
runner, and  set  an  example  of  ready  submission  to  all  the  ap- 
pointments of  God,  though  he  was  without  sin,  he  came  for- 
ward, and  was  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  of  Jordau  ;  and  was 
then  and  there  publickly  and  solemnly  declared,  not  only  by 
John  himself,  who  was  raised  up  and  inspired  for  that  purpose  ; 
but  by  the  visible  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  an  audible 
voice  from  the  Father  in  heaven,  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  and  the 
Saviour  of  mankind. 

Whereupon,  after  being  forty  days  tempted  of  the  devil,  he 
commenced  his  publick  ministry,  and  instituted  a  baptism  of 
his  own.  It  was  not  only  his  province  to  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire,  but  he  introduced  a  baptism  with 
water,  as  a  badge  of  discipleship,  and  a  significant  emblem  of 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

And  in  this  practice,  instituted  during  his  own  life  and  min- 
istry, we  find  the  origin  of  Christian  baptism.  It  did  not  com- 
mence with  the  ministry  of  John,  as  many  have  maintained  : 
%or  was  it  delayed  till  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  many 
others  have  maintained  :  but  it  commenced  during  his-  own  life 
and  personal  ministry.  It  is  strange  that  this  important  point 
has  been  so  generally  overlooked. 

Tracing  the  publick  history  of  our  Lord,  especially  as  it  is 
related  by  the  evangelist  John,  we  find  that  he  first  collected 
several  disciples  at  the  river  of  Jordan,  near  the  place  where  he 
had  been  baptized.  Then,  he  departed  with  them  into  Galli- 
lee,  where  he  performed  the  miracle  of  turning  water  into  wine 
at  a  wedding,  and  c*  manifested  his  glory  ;"  and  where  he 
gained  some  accession  to  the  number  of  his  disciples.  From 
thence,  after  a  short  time,  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  where  he 
aeld  the   memorable  conference  with  Nicodemus,  and  said, 

2* 


1 8  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  lie  cannofc 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 

Leaving  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  he  came  into  the  country  of 
Judea,  where  we  are  informed  that  "  he  tarried  and  baptized." 
This  is  the  first  express  mention  which  is  made  of  his  having 
introduced  baptism  ;  though  it  is  probable  that  the  disciples 
which  he  had  previously  made  were  baptized.  The  record  of 
this  fact  is  in  John  iii.  22.  "After  these  things  came  Jesus 
and  his  disciples  into  the  land  of  Judea,  and  there  he  tarried 
with  them  and  baptized,"  Here,  then,  we  have  unequivocal 
testimony  of  the  fact  that  Jesus,  soon  after  he  entered  upon  his 
publick  ministry,  practised  baptism.  Intimations  of  this  fact 
are  given  before,  particularly  in  what  he  said  to  Nicodemus, 
and  by  his  having  collected  a  band  of  disciples.  So  that  he 
probably  commenced  baptizing  immediately  upon  his  beginning 
to  make  disciples.  But  the  fact  of  his  having  baptized,  is  not 
expressly  asserted  till  now.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  his 
previous  practice,  he  certainly  administered  baptism,  or  caused 
it  to  be  administered,  at  the  time  and  place  here  alluded  to. 
Mention  of  this  fact  is  again  made  in  verses  25  and  26  of  this 
chapter.  "  Then  there  arose  a  question  among  some  of  John's 
disciples  and  the  Jews,  about  purifying  ;  and  they  came  to  John 
and  said  unto  him,  Rabbi,  he  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jor- 
dan, to  whom  thou  bearest  witness,  (he  same  baptizeth,  and  all 
men  come  to  him."  There  is  another  express  mention  of  this 
fact,  chap.  iv.  1,  2,  3.  "  When,  therefore,  the  Lord  knew  how 
the  pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  dis- 
ciples than  John,  (though  Jesus  baptized  not  himself,  but  his 
disciples,)  he  left  Judea,  and  departed  again  into  Gallilee." 

Here,  therefore,  there  are  three  express  passages  in  support  oi 
the  fact  that  Jesus,  during  his  life  and  personal  ministry  on 
earth,  and  at,  or  near  the  commencement  of  his  publick  course, 
did  introduce  and  practise,  to  a  very  considerable  extent,  the 
ordinance  of  baptism  And  from  the  last  of  the  three,  we  have 
the  very  information  which  we  should  naturally  expect  in  such 
a  case,  respecting  the  subjects  to  whom  it  was  applied.  They 
were  disciples,  and  them  only.  The  people  w<-re  first  made 
disciples,  and  then  baptized.  Mark  the  words,  for  they  are 
highly  emphatical  and  instructive  :  "Jesus  made  and  baptized 
more  disciples  than  John."  lie  did  not  fast  baptize  them,  and 
then  make  disciples  of  them  ;  but  he  made  disciples  of  them 
first,  and  then  baptized  them.  There  is  no  mention  made  cf 
parents, who,  after  being  baptized  themselves,  brought  their 
children  to  baptism  likewise,  nor  any  encouragement  given  for 
them  to  do  so.     There  is  an  admirable  simplicity  and  plainness 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  19 

in  the  narrative,  informing  us  who  were  baptized,  viz.  those 
who  Jirst  became  the  disciples  of  Christ.  Infants  are  not  in- 
eluded  in  the  record,  nor  is  there  the  least  intimation  that  they 
were  baptized,  or  were  ever  intended  to  be. 

But,  if  Christ  had  intended  this  ordinance  for  them,  he  surely 
would  have  mentioned  them  as  proper  subjects,  and  the  sacred 
and  impartial  historian  would  have  inserted  the  fact  that  they 
were  baptized. 

It  is  exceedingly  evident  that  the  baptism  performed  by 
Christ  during  his  publick  ministry,  like  that  of  his  predecessor, 
was  adult  believers'  baptism  only.  And  I  believe  it  is  conceded 
that  it  was  such  on  all  hands. 

If,  theu,  it  shall  appear  that  it  was  Christian  baptism  itself — 
the  very  same  ordinance  that  was  to  be  continued  in  the  church, 
this  will  afford  strong  and  convincing  proof  that  infants  ought  not 
to  be  baptized. 

Many,  I  know,  deny  that  it  was  Christian  baptism,  and  la- 
bour, in  that  way,  to  avoid  the  argument  which  it  furnishes  for 
believers'  baptism  only. 

But  when  the  subject  is  impartially  examined,  it  will  be  evi- 
dent that  it  was  ni)  other  than  Christian  baptism,  the  very  same 
that  is  contained  in  the  last  apostolick  commission.  For  it  was 
a  baptism  which  Christ  himself  instituted.  And  if  it  were  not 
properly  Christian,  or  New  Testament  baptism,  then  he  must 
have  introduced  two  distinct  baptisms — one  before,  and  the 
other  after  his  death.  But  where  is  the  proof  of  any  such  thing  ? 
Or  what  is  there  any  where  said  that  implies  it  ?  There  is 
evidently  no  proof  that  he  appointed  two  distinct  baptisms  in 
the  order  contained  in  the  final  commission  to  baptize  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
For  aught  that  appears,  this  might  have  been  the  same  form  in 
which  baptism  was  previously  administeied.  The  perfect  si- 
lence of  the  scriptures  is  not  sufficient  proof  that  it  was  not. 

But  even  if  the  name  of  the  Trinity  was  not  called  in  the 
baptism  performed  during  our  Lord's  life,  this  will  not  mate- 
rially affect  the  sameness  of  this,  and  the  baptism  used  subse- 
quently ;  so  long  as  the  disciples,  or  converts,  were  baptized  in 
the  name  of  Christ,  or  by  his  authority  ;  seeing  he  is  very  God 
as  well  as  man,  and  had  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  com- 
mitted unto  him.  The  difference  in  the  form  of  administra- 
tion, (allowing  such  difference  to  have  existed,)  did  not,  un- 
der the  circumstances  of  the  case,  make  the  baptisms  distinct. 

Again  ;  if  it  be  said  they  were  distinct  because  the  seal  of 
the  Abrahamick  covenant  was  not  changed  from  circumcision  to 
baptism,  till  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ — I  would: 


20  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

reply,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  seal  of  that  covenant 
tvas  ever  changed  from  circumcision  to  baptism.  The  notion 
that  baptism  is  a  substitute  for  circumcision  is  a  gross  mistake, 
which  I  trust  I  shall  fully  show  before  I  have  done. 

If  it  be  further  said,  that  these  baptisms  must  have  been  dis- 
tinct, because  the  ceremonial  law  was  not  disannulled  till  the 
death  of  Christ ;  and,  therefore,. the  New  Testament  dispensa- 
tion, to  which  Christian  baptism  belongs,  did  not  commence  till 
after  that  event,  and  of  course,  that  this  ordinance  could  not 
have  been  introduced  before  :  I  would  reply,  that  the  premises 
do  not  wan-ant  the  conclusion.  The  ceremonial  law  was, 
indeed,  obligatory  till  the  death  of  Christ.  But  the  new  cove- 
nant, or  New  Testament, might  notwithstanding,  have  been  pre- 
viously introduced,  and  in  successful  operation,  as  well  as  the 
Abrahymick,  which  was  undeniably  in  operation,  during  the 
whole  time  that  the  ceremonial  law  was  obligatory.  Besides, 
gospel  baptism  might  as  well  be  appointed  before  the  death  of 
Christ  as  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Moreover,  neither  circumcision  nor  baptism  belonged  to  the 
ceremonial  law.  The  former  was  not  of  Moses,  but  of  the  fa- 
thers ;  and  the  latter  was  of  Christ,  the  New  Testament  law- 
giver. 

It  is  evident,  also,  that  two  or  more  dispensations  of  the  cov- 
enant of  grace  may  exist,  and  be  in  operation  at  the  same  time, 
without  any  interference,  or  conjusion. 

And  further,  it  is  capable  of  the  clearest  proof,  that  the  New 
Testament  dispensation  did  continence  during  our  Lord's  life 
and  personal  ministry. 

So  that  this  objection  to  the  baptisms  in  question  being  the 
same,  i?  unfounded. 

If  it  could  be  conclusively  shown  that  any  who  were  bap- 
tized by  Christ,  or  by  his  order,  during  his  lite,  were  baptized 
again  after  his  death,  this  would  be  an  argument  of  some  force 
that  they  wrere  distinct  baptisms.  But  it  cannot.  There  is  no  ac- 
count, or  any  intimation,  that  any  of  the  disciples  made  and  bap- 
tized before  his  death,:  were  re-baptized  after  it.  It  is  evident, 
therefore,  that  the  baptism  instituted  in  his  life-time,  wTas  the 
same  as  the  one  practised  after  his  death  and  resurrection. 

In  addition  to  the  above  reasons,  I  would  remark  that  the 
institution  of  the  other  New  Testament  ordinance,  viz.  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  the  admission  of  the  twelve  to  it,  before  his 
death,  plainly  imply  that  New  Testament  baptism  was  also  in 
use  prior  to  that  event.  If  it  were  not,  the  disciples  ate  of  the 
supper  before  they  received  gospel  baptism ;  and  before  the* 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISI^ 

were  regularly  introduced  into  the  gospel  kingdom  ;  which  can- 
not be  reasonably  admitted.  Vv  /*>!  ^^'tipfels' 

xVgain  •  Are  we  to  suppose  thai  our  blessed  Lord  did  nothing 
effectually  during  his  life  and  publick  ministry  as  to  Ms  impor- 
tant subject^  but  that  all  he  did  was  to  be  done  over  again?-— 
This  would  be  a  gross  reflection  upon  his  character  and  ministry. 

He  made,  as  we  have  seen,  and  baptized  many  disciples  dur- 
ing his  publick  ministry  ;  and  yet  it  is  pretended  that  this  was 
not)  in  reality,  Christian  baptism,  but  altogether  a  distinct  thing. 
What  baptism  was  it,  then  ?  Was  it  a  continuance  of  John's 
baptism  ?  Then  the  disciples  so  baptized  were  John's  disciples, 
and  not  his.  But  the  Bible  says  they  were  his.  Therefore  his 
baptism  was  not  the  same  as  John's.  Again  :  Will  it  be  said 
that  it  was  merely  a  Jewish  washing,  and  not  a  gospel  ordi- 
nance ?  Whose,  then,  were  the  disciples  which  were  made 
and  baptized  ?  Were  they  the  disciples  of  Moses,  or  of  the 
Pharisees,  or  of  the  Jewish  High  Priest  ?  They  must  have 
been  the  disciples  of  the  one  to  whom  they  were  baptized. — 
Christ  evidently  would  not  have  made  them  disciples  to  himself, 
and  baptized  them  Xo  another.  If,  therefore,  they  were  his  own 
disciples,  and  baptized  unto  him,  this  was,  to  all  intents,  Chris- 
tian baptism— &  New  Testament  ordinance — the  very  same  men- 
tioned in  the  commission  which  has  been  considered.  The 
words  of  this  commission  do  not  imply  the  introduction  of  a  new 
ordinance  ;  but  only  the  extension  of  an  ordinance  already  in 
being,  to  "  all  nations,"  as  well  as  to  the  Jews,  or  to  belitvers 
from  among  all  nations. 

It  being  now  satisfactorily  shown  that  Christian  baptism  was 
instituted  during  the  life  and  personal  ministry  of  Christ ;  and 
that  when  thus  instituted  and  practised,  it  was  believers'  baptism 
only,  or  limited  expressly  to  those  who  became  Christ's  disciples ; 
this  serves  very  much  to  settle  this  controversy,  and  to  show 
that  the  sense  of  the  final  commission  for  baptism  is  what  I  have 
stated — an  order  to  baptize  believers  only. 

We  will  now  trace  the  history  of  baptism  subsequent  to  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ ;  in  doing  whjch  we  shall  find 
various  injunctions  and  examples  in  support  of  the  baptism  of 
believers  ;  but  none  in  favour  of  the  baptism  of  infants  on  the 
faith  of  their  parents.  ' 

Peter  said,  Acts  ii.  38, 41,  to  the  awakened  multitude  on  the 
day  of  pentecost,  u  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins.  Then  they 
that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized."  Repentance  is 
here  expressly  required  before  baptism,  and  it  is  required  of  every 
one  of  them.    They  were  considered  and  treated  as  converts,-- 


22  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

There  is  no  mention  made  whatever  of  any  infants  being  bap- 
tized, or  added  to  the  church.  And  I  can  hardly  think  any  so- 
ber Christian  will  maintain  that  there  were  any  infants  among 
the  three  thousand  then  baptized  and  added  to  the  company  of 
disciples.  It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  they  were  adult  believ- 
ers, or  such  as  were  baptized  on  their  own  faith  ;  and  those 
subsequently  added  were  of  the  same  character.  For  we 
are  expressly  told  that  the  "  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily  such 
as  should  be  saved"  or  "  the  saved,'7  as  it  might  have  been  ren- 
dered. 

The  next  account  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  is  that  of  the  Samaritans  who  were  converted  under 
the  preaching  ot  Philip.  Acts,  viii.  6.  "  But  when  they  be- 
lieved Philip,  preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both 
7nen  and  women.77  Here,  again,  there  is  no  mention  made  of 
any  infants.  But  if  infants  had  been  baptized  too,  would  it  not 
have  been  recorded  ?  It  is  certainly  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
it  would. 

In  the  same  chapter,  there  is  also  an  account  of  the  baptism 
of  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch.  The  condition  required  of  him  was, 
"  if  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest."  And 
the  profession  made  by  him  was,  "  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  the  Son  of  God,*?  So  that  here  was  the  baptism  of  a  be- 
liever. The  next  instance  recorded  is  that  of  Saul,  Acts,  ix. 
18,  who  was  also  a  believer  at  the  time.  Then  in  Acts,  x.  48, 
we  have  a  history  of  the  baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends, 
who  were  Gentiles  ;  and  the  reason  assigned  therefor  is,  that 
"  they  had  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  the  believing 
Jews."  u  They  spake  with  tongues  and  magnified  God  ;"  or, 
in  other  words,  they  were  believers  in  Jesus.  The  record  is  per- 
fectly silent  as  to  the  subject  of  baptizing  infants. 

In  the  next  place,  we  read  of  the  baptism  of  the  households 
of  Lydia  and  the  jailer,  Acts,  xvi.  15,  33.  But  the  record  in 
either  of  these  cases  does  not  imply  that  there  were  any  infants 
baptized  on  the  faith  of  their  parents.  The  former  household 
are,  in  verse  40,  characterized  as  brethren.  And  of  the  latter 
it  is  expressly  said,  verse  34,  that  the  jailer  "  rejoiced,  believ- 
ing in  God  with  all  his  house."  There  is,  therefore,  no  evi- 
dence here  that  any  were  baptized  but  believers. 

But  as  great  stress  is  laid  by  Pedobaptists  upon  these  instant 
ces,  and  that  of  the  household  of  Stephanas,  I  intend,  in  another 
place,  to  give  each  a  more  particular  consideration. 

The  next  account  of  baptism  is  that  of  the  Corinthians,  Acts, 
sviii.  8,  "  And  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  he- 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  23 

lieved  on  the  Lord  with  all  his  house ;  and  many  of  the  Co- 
rinthians hearing,  believed,  and  were  baptized."  Infants,  you 
see,  are  wholly  left  out  of  this  record  also.  In  I.  Corinthians, 
i.  16,  Paul  says,  "  I  baptized  also  the  household  of  Stephanas  ;" 
but  he  is  careful,  before  he  closes  his  Epistle,  to  give  us  their 
character  as  a  household  of  believers.  See  chap^  xvi.  15.  "  Ye 
know  the  house  of  Stephanas,  that  it  is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia, 
and  that  they  have  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the 
saints." 

There  is  another  account  of  baptism  given  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  chap.  xix.  I — 5,  which  is  that  of  the  twelve  disciples 
at  Ephesus,  and  already  noticed  ;  which,  of  course,  is  only  a 
record  of  believers'  baptism. 

In  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  chap.  vi.  3,  we  find  this 
sentence  :  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized 
into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?"  And  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  chap.  iii.  27,  we  find  the  following 
sentence,  viz.  "  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ  have  put  on  Christ."  The  phrases,  "  so  many  of 
us,"  and  "  as  many  of  you  as,"  plainly  mean  "  all  that." — 
Hence  all  that  were  baptized  u  were  baptized  into  Christ's 
death,"  and  u  put  on  Christ,"  which  can  import  nothing  less 
than  that  they  all  made  a  profession  of  faith.  Again,  in  Colos- 
sians,  ii.  12,  he  speaks  of  Christians  being  "  buried  with  Christ 
in  baptism." 

These  are  all  the  instances  in  which  an  express  record  is 
made  of  the  administration  of  Christian  baptism  in  the  New 
Testament.  And  they  are  all  examples  of  the  baptism  of  be- 
lievers only.  There  is  not  one  solitary  instance  of  the  baptism 
of  an  infant  upon  the  parents'  faith  in  the  whole  New  Testa- 
ment history. 

But  the  instances  of  baptism  recorded,  are  a  practical  com- 
ment on  the  apostolick  believers'  commission.  And  these  being 
instances  of  believers'  baptism  only,  show  conclusively  how  the 
Apostles  understood  the  commission  ;  that  the  order  to  baptize 
was  limited  to  believers  ;  and  that  no  subsequent  order  includ- 
ing infants  was  given.  / 
How  different  from  the  preceding  accounts  is  the  record 
-which  Pedohaptists  give  of  the  administration  of  baptism  ! 
They  are  wont  to  state  the  baptism  of  so  many  adults,  and  so 
many  infants.  Now  if  the  Apostles  had  done  the  same,  some  • 
thing  might  have  been  gathered  from  their  practice,  which 
would  have  been  to  the  purpose.  But  as  they  have  not  made 
any  such  record  ;  but  merely  recorded  the  baptism  of  believ- 


24  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ers;  it  is  plain  that  they  baptized  no  other ;  and  that  they  did 
not  understand  their  Lord  to  order  the  baptism  of  any  other. 

And,  here,  it  would  seem  that  we  might  rest  this  part  of  the 
subject. 

But  as  the  apostolick  commission  is  confessedly  of  high  im- 
portance in  this  controversy,  and  as  all  appear  to  be  sensible 
that  this  is  the  proper  place  to  look  for  the  warrant  to  baptize 
infants,  if  such  warrant  exists  ;  and  as  various  attempts  are 
made  to  show  that  it  does  include  such  a  warrant,  or  at  least 
that  it  contains  nothing  which  militates  against  their  baptism,  it 
is  proper,  for  the  sake  of  elucidating  the  truth,  that  these  at- 
tempts should  be  distinctly  considered. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

'The  various  attempts  to  include  Infants  in  the  Apostolick  Com- 
mission for  Baptism,  considered  and  refuted. 

1 .  Some  maintain  that  infants  are  included  among  the  disci- 
ples, and  thac  as  they  are  not  capable  of  being  taught,  they  must 
be  made  disciples  by  baptism,  or  be  thereby  brought  into  the 
school  of  Christ. 

But  this  is  manifestly  an  errour ;  for  the  words  of  the  com- 
mission do  not  imply,  or  intimate,  that  there  are  two  ways  of 
making  disciples,  the  one  by  teaching  and  the  other  by  baptism. 
There  is  only  one  way  described  of  making  them,  and  that  is 
by  teaching,  (the  Holy  Ghost  accompanying  the  word,)  and  then 
baptism  is  to  follow  as  the  consequence.  The  notion,  that  when 
the  head  of  a  family  becomes  a  disciple  by  teaching,  his  in- 
fants, or  his  household,  become  disciples,  of  course,  or  that 
they  become  such  by  being  baptized,  is  wholly  unfounded. 
None  are  disciples  but  such  as  are  converted  by  means  of  the 
word. 

It  is  not  to  be  inferred  that  infants  are  to  be  made  disciples 
in  a  different  way  from  that  of  adults,  on  account  of  their  inca- 
pacity to  be  taught.  The  words  of  the  commission  authorize 
no  such  conclusion. 

This  notion  is  not  only  unauthorized  and  absurd,  but  it 
plainly  contradicts  the  sense  of  the  commission.  The  very  or- 
der of  the  words  implies,  that  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism 
must  become  disciples  before  they  are  baptized.  They  are  not 
made  disciples  by  being  baptized,  for  the  very  reason  that  they 
must  become  disciples  first,  and  that  they  are  baptized  as  disci- 
ples ;  not  to  make  them  such.  Baptism  is  plainly  stated  as  the  con- 
sequence of  discipleship,  and  not  that  which  precedes  it  as  the  thing 
which  constitutes  discipleship.  To  talk  of  making  disciples  by 
baptism,  is  grossly  to  pervert  language.  It  is  turning  the  order 
of  Christ  into  quite  another  thing  from  what  his  words  make 
it.  To  maintain  that  this  commission  means  that  such  as 
are  capable  of  being  taught  should  be  made  disciples  by  teach- 
ing, and  that  such  as  are  not  capable  of  being  taught  should  be 
made  disciples  by  baptism^  is  positively  changing  the  commis- 

3 


26  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 

sion  from  its  plain  and  obvious  meaning.    It  is  astonishing  that 
men  will  take  such  liberty  with  the  word  of  God ! 

Besides  ;  if  the  incapacity  of  infants  to  be  taught  were 
any  argument  for  their  baptism,  it  would  be  in  favour  of 
the  baptism  of  such  only  as  are  mere  infants,  and  could  not  ap- 
ply, at  all,  to  the  baptism  of  a  whole  household,  provided  it  con- 
tains any  that  have  passed  the  strict  line  of  infancy.  And  yet 
we  constantly  hear  of  household  baptism  after  the  example'  of 
household  circumcision.  And  many,  and  I  believe  most  Pedo- 
baptists,  do  apply  baptism  to  children  upon  their  parents'  ac- 
count, who  cannot  be  considered  as  mere  infants ;  but  are  fully 
capable  of  being  taught  themselves.  And  if  they  did  not,  iht 
argument  from  household  circumcision  would  be  lost.  It  fre- 
quently happens,  that  a  parent  does  not  believe  till  he  has  a 
large  number  of  children  of  diflerent  ages,  from  the  mere  babe, 
to  children  of  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  more,  and  yet  at  the  ' 
time,  he  is  the  only  believer  in  the  family.  Now,  it  the  house- 
hold is  to  be  baptized  upon  his  faith,  they  must  all  be  baptized,  at 
least  all  under  age,  together  with  the  servants,  whatever  be  their 
age.  And,  yet,  the  ai gument  under  consideration  is,  that  infants 
must  be  baptized,  and  thereby  be  made  the  disciples  of  Christ, 
because  they  are  incapable  of  being  taught ;  otherwise  they 
should  be  discipled  by  teaching.  The  argument,  therefore,  from 
household  circumcision,  and  the  one  from  the  incapacity  of  infants, 
are  manifestly  inconsistent  with  each  other.  Infant  baptism  and 
household  baptism  cannot  be  defended  on  the  same  ground.  Jf 
the  argument  from  the  incapacity  of  infants  has  any  weight, 
it  will  exclude  all  of  a  family  from  baptism,  except  such  as  are  so 
young  as  to  be  incapable  of  being  taught,  and  consequently  all, 
in  general,  over  six  years  of  age,  and,  frequently,  all  over  four. 
And  it  will  wholly  contradict  the  argument  for  household  bap- 
tism. Does  it  not  hence  appear,  that  errour  is  fated  to  run 
crooked  ? 

Moreover ;  to  suppose  that  Christ  intended  infants  should  be 
discipled  merely  by  baptism,  on  account  of  their  incapacity,  is 
making  three  sorts  of  disciples  ;  whereas  the  scriptures  treat  of 
but  two ;  viz.  those  that  are  really  converted,  and  those  that  are 
visibly  and  professedly  converted,  but  not  really.  They  do  not 
any  where  describe  a  third  class  who  are  made  disciples  merely 
by  baptism,  from  which  it  is  obvious  that  no  such  class  exists. 

It  cannot  be  justly  pretended  that  infants  are  not  a  third 
class  of  disciples ;  but  are  to  be  reckoned  with  those  who  give 
credible  evidence  of  being  regenerated.  For  the  children  of 
believers  are  as  depraved  as  the  children  of  unbelievers,  and 
tbey^give  no  more  evidence  of  piety  after  they  are  baptized. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  27 

merely  upon  that  account,  than  before.     If,  therefore,  they  are 
disciples,  it  is  not  because  they  are  real  converts,  or  because 
they  appear  to  be  such ;  consequently,  they  must,  as  I  said,  be 
,a  third  class,  which  the  Bible  knows  nothing  of. 

2.  It  is  plead  that  infants  are  included  in  this  commission, 
because  they  are  a  part  of  the  nations,  and  Christ  said,  "  go 
teach"  or  disciple  "  all  nations,  baptizing  them :"  and  there  be- 
ing no  other  way  of  discipling  the  nations  as  such,  but  by  ma- 
king disciples  of  infants  by  baptism,  seeing  they  are  incapable 
of  being  taught,  they  must,  of  course,  be  included  in  the  com- 
mission in  this  sense 

If  this  argument  has  any  force,  it  will  go  to  support  the  idea 
of  a  national  church,  and  of  the  indiscriminate  application  of 
baptism  ;  which  most  of  the  orthodox  would  not  relish. 

But  in  fact,  it  ha3  no  force.  The  order  to  make  disciples  of 
all  nations  is,  from  its  very  nature,  limited  to  such  as  are  capa- 
ble of  being  taught.  It  does  not  extend  to  mere  infants  and 
idiots. 

If  the  Lord  had  bid  his  Apostles  go  and  teach  all  nations 
the  Hebrew  language,  common  sense  would  lead  us  to  restrict 
the  order  to  such  as  were  capable  of  being  taught  it.  It  is  just 
as  obvious  that  the  order  to  make  disciples  of  all  nations  is 
limited  to  such  as  have  the  capacity  of  being  taught  the  great 
things  of  his  kingdom. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  infants  are  capable  of  being  re- 
newed and  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of  having  the 
principle  of  faith  implanted  in  them,  and  consequently  of  being 
saved,  should  they  die  in  that  age,  through  the  merits  of  Christ. 

But  they  are  not  capable  of  receiving  gospel  instruction,  and 
of  making  a  credible  profession  of  faith  ;  and  therefore  are  not 
capable  of  being  discipled,  according  to  the  obvious  tenour  of 
this  commission. 

And  as  they  are  not  capable  of  giving  evidence  of  grace  so 
as  to  be  numbered  among  the  brethren  ;  so  they  are  not  capable 
of  doing  the  duties  of  church  members,  nor  of  enjoying  the 
external  privileges  of  the  church.  Hence  it  is  abundantly  evi- 
dent that  they  were  not  intended  to  be  included  among  the  , 
proper  subjects  of  Christian  baptism, 

3.  It  is  plead  that  infants  "are  included  in  this  commission, 
because  the  Lord  Jesus  was  a  Jew,  and  spake  to  those  that 
were  Jews  ;  and  that  if  the  order  had  been,  go  teach  all  nations, 
circumcising  them,  the  duty  of  circumcising  children  upon  their 
parents'  account,  would  have  been  considered  as  implied  therein, 
provided  nothing  more  had  been  added:  and  consequently,  as 
baptism  takes  the  place  of  circumcision  under  the  New  Testa- 


1 


28  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

merit  dispensation,  they  must  naturally  have  understood  him  ftp 
include  infants  in  this  commission* 

In  reply,  I  would  remark,  that  if  no  new  dispensation  had 
been  introduced,  and  no  other  instructions  had  been  given  than 
those  contained  in  the  Abrahamiek  covenant  and  the  Mosaick 
law,  and  our  Lord  had  said  as  above  represented,  without  adding 
any  thing  more ;  it  is  admitted  that  they  would  have  naturally 
inferred,  that  when  the  head  of  a  family  was  taught  and  con- 
verted, all  his  mates  were  to  be  circumcised  as  well  as  himself — 
"  all  that  were  born  in  his  house  and  bought  with  his  money." 
But  they  would  not  have  inferred  that  his  female  children  and 
servants  had  any  thing  to  do  with  this  rite,  because  they  were 
not  included  in  the  original  order  for  circumcision.  80  that 
the  above  conclusion  as  to  children  in  general,  or  of  both  sexes, 
is  not  warranted  by  the  premises,  allowing  them  to  be  true. 
Much  more  will  the  conclusion  respecting  the  baptism  of  chil- 
dren of  both  sexes  appear  to  be  unwarranted^ .  when  it  shall  be 
made  manifest  that  baptism  is  not  a  substitute  for  circumcision* 

To  evince  how  perfectly  inconclusive  this  whole  argument 
is,  as  it  respects  even  the  baptism  of  male  children  and  servants, 
I  would  observe  that  our  Lord  had  actually  introduced  a  new 
dispensation,  and  set  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  foretold  by  the 
prophet  Daniel,  by  calling  out  from  the  body  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  a  company  of  disciples,  and  had  taught  expressly  that 
his  kingdom  was  "  not  of  this  world"  He  had  also  given 
various  additional  instructions  to  those  contained  in  the  Abra- 
hamick covenant  and  the  Mosaick  law,  and  had  come  for  the 
purpose  of  annulling  the  ceremonial  code  delivered  to  Moses, 
and  of  instituting  a  new  order  of  things,  and  had  actually  intro- 
duced two  new  rites,  viz.  baptism  and  the  hordes  supper,  the 
former  of  which  had  been  applied,  during  his  life,  exclusively 
to  disciples,  and  the  latter  had  been  confessedly  applied  to  such 
merely  ;  therefore,  it  he  had  said,  under  these  circumstances,  Go 
teach  all  nations,  circumcising  them,  they  would  not  have  in- 
ferred even  the  duty  of  circumcising  the  male  children  of 
believers  of  all  nations :  much  less  the  baptism  not  only  oimale, 
but  female  children,  when  he  had  never  taught  them  that  bap- 
tism was  a  substitute  for  circumcision.  And  what  is  still  further 
unfortunate  for  this  argument,  is,  that  our  Lord  did  not  say  to 
his  apostles,  Go  teach,  or  disciple  all  nations,  circumcising  them  ; 
but  baptizing  them.  There  is  not  a  word,  or  hint,  about  circum- 
cision in  the  whole  commission,  or  of  baptism's  coming  in  the 
room  of  it. 

The  ordinance  of  circumcision  was  never  enjoined  on   any 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  29 

but  Abraham  and  his  descendants,  and  such  as  were  incorpora- 
ted with  them  in  their  national  capacity ;  and  to  them  it  has 
never  been  annulled,  (which  I  shall  show  particularly  in  a 
subsequent  chapter.)  Therefore,  baptism  cannot  be  a  substi- 
tute for  that  ordinance  ;  and  so  the  argument  from  circumcision 
is  wholly  lost. 

4.  It  is  plead  that  infants  are  included  in  this  commission, 
upon  the  ground  that  baptism  is  a  seal  of  the  same  covenant  of 
which  circumcision  was,  and  appointed  for  the  same  purposes. 
But  this  ground  is  wholly  untenable,  and  the  argument  is  good 
for  nothing.  Where  are  we  told  that  baptism  is  a  seal  of  the 
same  covenant  of  which  circumcision  was  ?  or  even  a  seal  of 
any  covenant  whatever  ?  Surely  not  in  the  Bible,  although  the 
sentiment  is  constantly  advanced  as  though  it  rested  on  the 
highest  scriptural  authority. 

Besides,  as  circumcision  was  never  obligatory  on  the  Gen- 
tiles in  their  separate  national  capacity,  and  was  never  abroga- 
ted to  the  Jews ,  but  remains  in  full  force  to  them,  there  can  be 
no  ground  to  consider  baptism  as  a  substitute.  As*  the  case  is, 
such  a  thing  could  not  be. 

It  is  capable  of  the  clearest  proof  that  circumcision  was  con- 
tinued to  the  believing  as  well  as  to  the  unbelieving  Jews 
through  the  whole  of  the  apostolick  age,  and  not  the  least  notice 
is  taken  of  baptism's  being  a  substitute,  when  the  circumstances 
manifestly  required  that  this  notice  should  have  been  taken,  if 
such  had  been  the  fact.  Therefore,  it  is  perfectly  unwarrant- 
ed and  preposterous  to  consider  it  a  substitute  for  that  rite. 

Besides ;  should  it  even  be  admitted  that  the  seal  of  the  Abra- 
hamick  covenant  is  changed  from  circumcision  to  baptism;  noth- 
ing could,  hence,  be  conclusively  argued,  under  all  the  circum- 
stances, in  favour  of  the  baptism  of  infants. 

The  question  will  naturally  arise,  when  was  it  changed  ? 
Was  it  changed  during  our  Lord's  personal  ministry  ?  or  not  till 
after  his  resurrection  ?  I  believe  it  is  generally  maintained  by 
Pedobaptists  that  it  was  not  changed  until  after  his  resurrection  ; 
and  that  the  baptism  which  he  appointed  before  was  a  differ- 
ent thing,  and  not  a  seal  of  the  covenant.  But  this  opinion,  as  / 
I  have  already  shown,  is  unauthorized.  It  is  certain  that  Christ 
introduced  a  baptism  during  his  life,  and  at  or  near  the  com- 
mencement of  his  publick  ministry.  And  we  do  not  any  where 
learn  that  he  afterwards  introduced  a  different  one.  He  cer- 
tainly made  and  baptized  disciples  in  his  life- time;  and  these 
were  not  baptized  to  John,  nor  to  any  other  man  ;  but  to  him,  as 
his  disciples.  The  record  plainly  says  so.  And  those  that 
were  baptized  after  his  resurrection,  were  not  baptized  other* 

3* 


30  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

wise  than  as  his  disciples.  u  As  many  of  you,  says  Paul,  as* 
have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ. "  Those 
who  received  baptism  during  our  Lord's  personal  ministry  were 
as  truly  admitted  into  his  kingdom  as  those  that  received  it  af- 
terwards. It  is,  therefore,  abundantly  clear  that  these  baptisms 
were  the  same. 

Consequently,  if  the  seal  of  the  Abrahamick  covenant  was 
changed  from  circumcision  to  baptism,  the  change  must  have 
taken  place  during  our  Lordys  life  and  personal  ministry. 

But  the  application  of  baptism,  which  is  called  by  Pedobap- 
tists  the  new  seal,  was  then  determined,  by  his  will  and  order, 
to  belong  only  to  believers  of  both  sexes.  He  made  disciples  by 
teaching  before  he  baptized  them.  There  is  not  a  syllable  in 
favour  of  his  baptizing  any  others.  The  argument,  therefore, 
from  the  change  of  the  seals,  if  such  change  were  admitted,  is 
inconclusive.  The  same  change,  whereby  the  new  seal,  as  it 
is  called,  is  applied  to  females,  limits  the  application  of  it  to  be- 
lievers of  both  sexes. 

All  will  be  forced  to  admit  that  there  is  a  change  in  the  appli- 
cation of  the  new  seal,  from  that  of  the  old  ;  inasmuch  as  it  is 
unquestionably  applicable  to  females,  whereas  the  former  seal 
was  expressly  limited  to  males. 

If,  therefore,  this  change  might  be  made,  and  if  it  be  allowed 
that  -this  was  suitable  and  proper,  under  the  new  dispensation  ; 
a  still  further  change  might  likewise  be  made,  so  as  to  restrict 
baptism  to  believers  of  both  sexes,  as  best  suited  to  the  spiritual 
nature  of  the  gospel  dispensation ;  and  this  might  be  done  with- 
out destroying  the  idea  of  its  being  a  seal  of  the  same  covenant. 
Every  one  can  see  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  its  being  a  seal  of 
the  same  covenant,  that  it  should  be  applied  to  infants,  any  more 
than  that  it  should  be  limited  to  the  male  sex.  If  the  lawgiver 
could  consistently  make  the  latter  alteration,  and  yet  it  be  the 
seal  of  the  same  covenant,  he  manifestly  could  the  former.  And 
such  a  change  as  extends  the  application  of  gospel  baptism  to 
females,  and  limits  it  to  believers  of  both  sexes,  evidently  befits 
the  present  more  spiritual  dispensation  and  economy,  wherein, 
instead  of  taking  one  whole  nation,  as  formerly,  to  be  his  people, 
in  distinction  from  Others,  he  takes  believers  from  among  all 
nations. 

And  when  we  find  that  this  ordinance  was,  in  fact,  thus 
limited,  during  our  Lord's  personal  ministry,  it  was  evidently 
not  his  pleasure  that  it  should  be  applied  to  any  but  believers. 
And,  hence,  it  would  have  been  perfectly  unnatural  for  the 
apostles  to  infer,  under  all  the  circumstances,  that  infants  were 
included   in   their  final   commission.      And  the    subsequent 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  3 1 

history  of  their  transactions  shows,  as  we  have  seen,  that  they 
did  not  infer  any  such  thing. 

Therefore,  nothing  is  materially  gained  to  the  cause  of  Pedo- 
baptism,  by  admitting  that  the  Abrahamick  covenant  is  the  one 
which  we  are  now  under,  and  that  the  seal  thereof  is  changed 
as  above. 

But,  in  fact,  the  Abrahamick  covenant  is  distinct  from  the 
new  covenant,  and  baptism  is  not  a  seal  of  either,  or  of  any  other 
covenant.  It  is  a  simple  ordinance  of  the  New  Testament,  or 
covenant,  which  is  a  different  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  both  from  the  Sinai  and  the  Abrahamick  dispensations. 
The  only  seal  of  the  new  covenant  is  the  blood  of  Christ. 

Moreover,  baptism  is  a  positive  institution,  the  nature  and 
use  of  which  are,  accordingly,  to  be  determined  by  the  words 
which  contain  it — by  the  very  authority  on  which  it  rests,  as 
signified  therein,  and  not  by  inferences  drawn  from  a  previous 
appointment. 

There  is,  indeed,  some  similarity  in  the  nature  and  use  of  the 
two  ordinances ;  although  the  one  does  not  answer  all  the  pur- 
poses of  the  other,  and  in  some  respects  they  serve  different 
purposes.  Yet  this  similarity  in  certain  respects  will  not  de- 
termine the  extent  to  which  baptism  is  to  be  applied.  We  are 
restricted  in  this  case  by  the  appointment  of  the  lawgiver,  and 
the  known  practice  of  his  inspired  apostles.  And  these  deter- 
mine that  the  ordinance  belongs  only  to  believers  of  both  sexes. 

That  baptism  does  not  answer  all  the  purposes  of  circumci- 
sion, must  be  obvious  to  any  one  who  will  candidly  examine 
the  various  items  of  the  Abrahamick  covenant. 

Although  one,  or  two,  of  the  provisions  of  that  covenant  be- 
long to  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  to  the  Jews,  it  does  not  belong  to 
them  as  a  whole.  But  circumcision  had  respect  to  it  as  a  whole7 
confirming  all  its  promises.  Therefore  baptism,  which  belongs 
to  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  cannot  answer  all  the  ends  of  cir- 
cumcision, allowing  that  it  does  some  of  them.  And  this  very 
circumstance  requires  a  difference  in  its  application,  and  natu- 
rally limits  it  to  believers  of  both  sexes. 

It  is  perfectly  clear  that  a  different  use  was  made,  at  first,  of  > 
baptism,  from  that  which  was  made  of  circumcision.  It  was 
not  applied  to  Jews  in  common,  or  promiscuously,  like  circum- 
cision, nor  to  all  the  males  of  a  man's  house  ;  but  to  select 
persons  from  among  that  circumcised  people,  and  from  among 
their  respective  families — to  such  only  as  became  Christians,  or 
believers  in  Jesus.  Here,  then,  is  a  point  in  which  there  is  a 
dissimilarity  in  the  nature  and  design  of  the  two  institutions, 
We  cannot  therefore  rightly  infer  the  duty  of  infant  baptism 


3l>  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 

from  any  similarity  which  may  exist  in  some  other  respects  be- 
tween them. 

Thus,  the  various  efforts  which  are  made  to  make  it  appear 
that  infants  are  included  in  the  commission  for  baptism,  are 
altogether  ineffectual.  It  is  plain,  after  all,  that  it  is  limited  to 
disciples ,  or  believers. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  33 


CHAPTER  W 

Circumcision  shown  to  be  of  perpetual  obligation  to -the  Jews, 
and  hence  Baptism  cannot  be  considered  as  a  substitute. 

It  is  a  common  opinion  that  the  rite  of  circumcision-  was 
annulled,  when  the  new  dispensation  was  introduced,  and  that 
baptism  was  appointed  in  its  stead.  But  this  opinion  has  been 
adopted  without  scriptural  authority.  The  notion  that  baptism 
is  a  substitute  for  circumcision,  is  one  of  the  strongest  arguments 
employed  for  the  baptism  of  infants.  If  this  notion  therefore 
shall  appear  to  be  unauthorized,  it  will  tend  very  much  to  over- 
throw that  cause  ;  it  will,  in  fact,  subvert  its  main  pillar.  This, 
then,  is  a  point  which  deserves  to  be  seriously  <^:,sidered. 

Some  may  start  at  the  idea  that  circumcision  was  ntiper  ab- 
rogated to  the  Jews,  and  think  it  will  lead  to  horrible  conse- 
quences.    But  let  us  patiently  examine  the  matter. 

Circumcision  was  certainly  in  full  and  approved  use  among 
the  Jews  at  the  commencement  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  when 
baptism  w^%  first  appointed :  and  yet  no  notice  is  taken  of  this 
being  a  substitute  for  that  ancient  rite,  or  of  its  ever  being 
designed  to  be. 

Circumcision  continued,  also,  in  approved  use  during  the 
whole  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  in  which  he  was  continually 
making  and  baptizing  disciples.  And  it  was  in  use  when  the 
final  commission  was  given  to  teach  and  baptize  all  nations  ;  and 
yet  all  is  silent  on  the  subject  of  its  abrogation,  or  discontinu- 
ance, and  of  the  appointment  of  baptism  in  its  stead,  as  a  seal 
of  the  same  covenant. 

It  was,  moreover,  in  use  on  the  memorable  day  of  Pentecost ; 
and  yet  Peter  said,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized,  everyone  of  you. ' 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  without 
saying  a  word  about  the  new  seaVs  coming  in  the  place  of  the 
old  :  he  never  intimated  that  they  were  no  longer  to  circumcise 
their  children. 

It  was  in  use  when  Peter  had  the  vision  respecting  the  call- 
ing of  the  Gentiles,  and  actually  went  (being  convinced  and 
overpowered  by  a  miraculous  vision,  and  by  the  express  order 


34  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

of  God)  to  Cornelius  and  his  friends,  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
structing them  in  the  things  of  the  gospel;  and  yet  there  is- 
not  even  a  suggestion  respecting  the  change  of  the  seals,  and  the 
discontinuance  of  circumcision  to  the  Jews. 

It  was  in  use  when  the  brethren  went  up  from  the  church  at 
Antioch  to  Jerusalem,  on  the  question  about  circumcising  the 
Gentiles,  to  inquire  whether  that  church  had  given  direction  to 
the  teachers  who  came  out  from  them  to  impose  circumcision 
and  the  Mosaick  rites  on  the  Gentiles  ;  which  must  have  been 
seventeen  years  after  the  conversion  of  Paul,  as  appears  from 
his  epistle  to  the  Galatians  ;  and  yet  there  is  not  a  word  said 
about  the  supposed  substitution,  or  of  the  abolition  of  circumcision 
among  the  Jews  :  when  if  any  such  thing  had  taken  place,  and 
was  known,  the  occasion  required  that  it  should  be  stated,  and 
the  principle  of  substitution  defended;  and  when  the  bare 
statement  of  it  would  have  for  ever  put  to  silence  the  question 
respecting  the  circumcision  of  the  Gentiles. 

All  which  would  have  been  required  was  to  state  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  had  abrogated  the  rite  of  circumcision,  and  appoint- 
ed baptism  as  a  new  seal  of  the  ^ame  covenant — a  seal  that  was 
common  to  all  nations,  and  one  which  had  actually  been  in  use 
a  number  of  years,  both  amoug  Jews  and  Gentiles  ;  and  hence 
that  there  was  no  nece&sity  for  circumcising  the  Gentiles  ;  yea, 
that  the  idea  was  palpably  absurd.  Moreover,  that  it  was  both 
unnecessary  and  absurd  to  continue  circumcision  among  the  Jews 
themselves,  seeing  they  were,  from  the  very  first,  in  possession 
of  the  new  seal.  This,  I  say,  would  have  been  all  which  was 
required  to  terminate  this  dispute  and  silence  the  Judaizers. 

Or,  at  most,  it  would  have  been  sufficient  to  say,  that  although 
circumcision  was  permitted  to  the  Jews,  notwithstanding  it  had 
become  obsolete,  on  account  of  their  prejudices  and  strenuous 
adherence  to  their  ancient  usages  ;  and  notwithstanding  a  new 
seal  or  token  of  the  covenant  had  been  introduced ;  it  was  per- 
fectly unnecessary  and  unwarrantable  to  impose  circumcision 
on  the  Gentiles,  who  had  never  been  under  the  Mosaick  law,  and 
who,  by  the  express  appointment  of  Jesus  Christ,  were  like- 
wise in  possession  of  the  new  seal. 

Now  1  say  that  what  is  contained  in  the  one  or  the  other  of 
these  statements,  would  have  been  amply  sufficient  to  settle  that 
whole  controversy  at  once,  sand  for  ever. 

And  had  the  principle  been  true,  that  circumcision  was  disan- 
nulled and  baptism  substituted  in  its  room,  the  occasion  imperi- 
ously demanded  such  an  explanation  and  disclosure.  To  neglect 
this  argument  was  not  only  to  act  inconsistently,  and  even  dis- 
honest1/, in  keeping  back  a  plain  and  important  principle  whicfc 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  3$ 

most  intimately  respected  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the  church ; 
but,  to  lay  aside  the  exercise  of  common  sense.  Who  can  sup- 
pose, when  so  much  interest  was  taken  in  the  question,  and 
when  so  many  insisted  that  the  Gentiles  should  be  circumcised 
and  keep  the  Jaw ;  and  when  there  was  so  much  argument  and 
disputing  in  that  venerable  assembly  of  apostles,  elders  and 
brethren,  that  &  prof ound  silence  would  have  been  observed  re- 
specting a  principle,  which,  if  true,  would  have  put  an  immedi- 
ate end  to  the  controversy.  An  expert  Pedobaptist  would  have 
decided  the  cause  in  two  minutes ;  yea,  in  one;  so  that  no  one 
could  have  had  a  face  to  urge  the  imposition  of  circumcision  on 
the  Gentiles. 

And  yet  no  one  appears  to  have  thought  of  this  overpower- 
ing argument.  No  intimation  is  given  that  the  supposed  change 
had  taken  place  in  the  seals,  and  that  circumcision  was  abolish- 
ed to  the  Jews.  Here,  I  say,  in  the  very  place,  and  on  the  very- 
occasion,  when  this  subject  could  not,  from  the  nature  of  the 
circumstances,  have  failed  to  be  discussed  and  plainly  stated, 
if  it  had  been  real,  not  a  tittle  is  uttered.  What  then  is  the  le- 
gitimate conclusion^  It  is,  that  the  sentiment  that  baptism  had 
taken  the  place  of  circumcision,  and  that  circumcision  was  no 
longer  obligatory  on  the  Jews,  was  not  known,  and  was  not  true. 
After  the  church  at  Jerusalem  had  expressly  denied  giving 
the  teachers  in  question  any  direction  to  impose  circumcision 
on  the  Gentiles,  and  much  had  been  said  in  the  council  for  and 
against  the  measure,  an  inspired  decree  was  delivered  by  the 
apostles,  in  which  the  Gentiles  were  expressly  exempted  from 
the  practice  of  circumcision,  and  the  ceremonial  rites  of  the 
law;  which  decree  implies,  at  least,  that  the  Jews  considered 
themselves  bound  to  continue  this  institution. 

It  is  conceded  that  they  appear  generally  to  have  thought  that 
the  rites  of  Moses  were  also  obligatory  ;  which  weie,  in  reality, 
abrogated  by  the  death  of  Christ,  and  therefore  not  binding, 
although  their  use  was  tolerated  for  a  season.  This  matter, 
probably,  was  not  fully  cleared  up,  till  Paul  wrote  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  and  till  the  first  covenant  u  which  waxed  old 
and  was  ready  to  vanish  away,"  was  completely  broken  in  the 
final  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  dispersion  of  the  nation. 
This  circumstance,  however,  does  not  materially  affect  the 
argument. 

Their  conceiving  that  the  observance  of  the  ancient'  rites 
appointed  by  Moses  was  necessary,  as  well  as  circumcision,  is 
no  evidence  that  they  knew  any  thing  about  this  supposed 
change  in  the  seals;  nor  is  it  any  evidence  that  circumcision 
and  these  rites  are  to  be  placed  on  the  same  footing,  so  that  if 


36  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

one  was,  in  fact,  abrogated,  the  other  was  also,  although  the  use 
of  both  was  permitted  for  a  season.  For  it  is  plain  that  the 
abrogation  of  these  rites  did  not  annul  circumcision  ;  because  "it 
was  not  of  Moses  ;  but  of  the  fathers."  It  was  not  a  part  of  the 
ceremonial  law,  although  certain  regulations  were  made  by- 
Moses  relative  to  its  observance.  But  it  belonged  to  another 
covenant  "  which  the  law  could  not  disannul."  The  abroga- 
tion of  the  law ,  therefore,  did  not  abrogate  this  rite,  as  originally 
instituted  to  Abraham,  any  more  than  the  covenant  to  which  it 
belonged.  The  ceremonial  law  given  by  Moses  might  be  done 
away,  and  yet  the  covenant  with  Abraham  continue.,  together 
with  its  appointed  token,  to  those  for  whom  it  was  designed,  viz. 
the  natural  descendants  of  that  patriarch.  And  such  was  the  fact. 
Therefore  this  rite,  and  the  Mosaick  ritual,  were  not  placed  on 
a  parallel  footing. 

Hence,  the  Jews'  conceiving,  for  a  time,  that  they  were 
bound  to  observe  this  law,  after  it  had,  in  fact,  ceased  to  be 
obligatory,  does  not  affect  the  subject  of  circumcision,  which 
belonged  to  another  covenant,  that  has  not,  and  cannot  pass 
away.  Their  misapprehension  respecting  the  continuance  of 
the  Mosaick  rites,  does  not  imply  that  they  were  under  any 
mistake  as  to  the  continuance  of  circumcision  ;  nor  does  it 
serve  to  show  that  they  knew  any  thing  about  a  substitute  for 
that  ordinance.  But  the  total  silence  above  noticed  shows  that 
they  did  not. 

Had  they  continued  circumcision  merely  on  the  same  princi- 
ple with  the  rites  of  Moses,  the  second  argument  above  stated 
would  have  met  the  case  in  question,  and  perfectly  silenced 
the  plea  for  the  circumcision  of  the  Gentiles.  And  they,  surely, 
would  not  have  failed  to  employ  it^  when  it  was  so  appropriate, 
and  so  urgently  required. 

As  to  the  Mosaick  rites  themselves,  no  one  pretends  that 
there  was  a  substitute  appointed.  They  all,  of  course,  termi- 
nated, as  types,  in  Christ,  to  whom  they  pointed,  and  in  the 
spirituality  of  his  kingdom.  Had  there  been  a  change,  and 
others  appointed  in  their  stead,  the  case  would  have,  evidently, 
required  the  mention  of  it.  Its  not  being  mentioned,  is,  of  it- 
self, a  conclusive  argument  that  no  such  thing  existed. 

80  in  the  other  case,  no  mention  being  made  of  the  change  of 
circumcision  to  baptism,  when  the  occasion,  in  every  view, 
imperiously  required  it,  shows  that  it  was  not  a  reality. 

Nor  do  the  following  words  of  Paul,  Gal.  v.  2,  3,  viz.  "  If 
ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing;  for  I  testify 
to  every  man  that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the 
whole  law,"  piesent  any  difficulty.     For  it  is  evident  that  he 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  J7 

does  not  refer  to  the  simple  practice  of  circumcision ;  but  to  the 
perverted  notion  of  it  which  was  propagated  by  the  Judaizing 
teachers,  viz.  "  That  except  they  were  circumcised  and  kept 
the  law,  they  could  not  be  saved,"  It  was  this  view  of  cir- 
cumcision that  he  was  opposing,  and  not  the  simple  institution 
as  a  token  of  God's  covenant  with  Abraham.  Hence  he  says, 
"  whosoever  of  you  are  justified  by  the  law,  ye  are  fallen  from 
grace,"  i.  e.  from  the  scheme  of  grace.  Certainly  if  they  were 
circumcised  upon  this  principle/'  Christ  would  profit  them  no- 
thing .;"  for  grace  and  works  could  not  be  intermixed. 

Yet  circumcision  might  be  continued  on  other  grounds,  and 
was  so  continued  by  the  purest  and  best  Jewish  believers.  We 
have  already  traced  its  continuance  down  to  the  period  of  the 
council  which  sat  at  Jerusalem.  And  we  shall  be  able  to  trace 
it  still  farther.  If,  therefore,  the  mere  practice  of  circumcis- 
ion after  the  death  of  Christ  rendered  him  unprofitable  to  the 
circumcised,  the  whole  multitude  of  believing  as  well  as  unbe- 
lieving Jews,  hereby  excluded  themselves  from  the  benefits  of 
his  atonement,  and  made  themselves  debtors  to  do  the  whole 
law  ;  for  they  were  all  in  this  practice.  But  this  cannot  be. 
Therefore,  Paul  unquestionably  refers  to  the  aforesaid  corrupt- 
ed view  of  this  rite  and  the  customs  of  Moses. 

He  himself  allowed  of  simple  circumcision  to  the  Jews, 
though  he  would  not  consent  to  have  it  imposed  on  the  Gentiles. 
He  was,  indeed,  accused  of  opposing  circumcision  altogether : 
but  it  was  not  so.  This  will  clearly  appear,  together  with  the 
continuance  of  circumcision  among  all  the  Jews,  believing  as 
well  as  unbelieving,  from  Acts,  xxi.  17 — 26.  "And  when  we 
were  come  to  Jerusalem,  the  brethren  received  us  gladly.  And 
the  day  following,  Paul  went  in  with  us  unto  James ;  and  all 
the  elders  were  present.  And  when  he  had  saluted  them,  he 
declared  particularly  what  things  God  had  wrought  among  the 
Gentiles  by  his  ministry.  And  when  they  heard  it,  they  glori- 
fied the  Lord,  and  said  unto  him,  thou  seest,  brother,  how  many 
thousands  of  Jews  there  are  which  believe  ;  and  they  are  all 
zealous  of  the  law  :  and  they  are  informed  of  thee,  that  thou 
teachest  all  the  Jews  which  are  among  the  Gentiles,  to  forsake  / 
Moses,  saying,  that  they  ought  not  to  circumcise  their  children, 
neither  to  walk  after  the  customs.  What  is  it  therefore  ?  the 
multitude  must  needs  come  together :  for  they  will  hear  that 
thou  art  come.  Do  therefore  this  that  we  say  unto  thee :  we 
have  four  men  which  have  a  vow  on  them ;  them  take,  and 
purify  thyself  with  them,  and  be  at  charges  with  them,  that  they 
may  shave  their  heads :  and  all  may  know  that  those  things, 
whereof  they  were  informed  concerning  thee,  are  nothing ;  but  that 

4 


38  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

thou  thyself  also  walkest  orderly,  and  keepest  the  law.  As  touch- 
ing the  Gentiles  which  believe,  we  have  written  and  concluded 
that  they  observe  no  such  thing,  save  only  that  they  keep  them- 
selves from  things  offered  to  idols,  and  from  blood,  and  from 
things  strangled,  and  from  fornication.  Then  Paul  took  the 
men,  and  the  next  day  purifying  himself  with  them,  entered  in- 
to the  temple,  to  signify  the  accomplishment  ot  the  days  of  pu- 
rification, until  that  an  offering  were  made  for  every  one  of 
them." 

The  date  of  this  transaction  must  have  been  several  years  af- 
ter the  time  of  the  aforementioned  council ;  and  yet u  the  many 
thousands  of  Jews  which  believed  were  all  zealous  of  circumcis- 
ion and  the  law  of  Moses. >*  It  is  sometimes  asked,  did  the  belie-* 
ving  Jews  continue  to  practise  circumcision  ?  In  this  passage  we 
have  a  definite  answer.  They  did,  all  of  them.  Even  Paul  did 
not  teach  the  believing  Jews  that  were  among  the  Gentiles  that 
they  ought  not  to  circumcise  their  children,  as  it  had  been  report- 
ed. Otherwise,  his  compliance  with  the  measure  proposed  by 
the  brethren  at  Jerusalem  to  silence  the  clamour  of  the  people, 
was  practising  a  lie.  For  the  very  object  of  this  measure  was 
to  counteract  the  report  that  he  had  so  taught.  And  Paul's  free- 
ly consenting  to  this  measure  was  a  tull  and  publick  declara- 
tion that  he  had  taught  no  such  thing  as  was  reported.  He  al- 
lowed of  circumcision  to  the  Jews,  let  them  live  where  they 
would. 

Here,  again,  when  the  circumstances  of  the  case  plainly  de- 
manded that  the  change  of  the  seals,  and  the  discontinuance  of 
circumcision  to  the  Jews,  (if  such  had  been  the  fact,)  should 
have  been  noticed ;  not  a  word  is  uttered,  or  an  intimation  gi- 
ven.    Nor  is  there  any  mention  of  this  afterwards. 

Instead  of  this,  circumcision  was  strenuously  practised  "  by 
the  many  thousands  of  Jews  which  believed,"  as  well  as  others, 
long  after  the  introduction  of  the  Christian  dispensation ;  yea, 
through  the  whole  period  of  the  New  Testament  history.  They 
were  so  precise  in  regard  to  this  subject,  that  the  report  that  a 
single  individual  had  set  himself  against  the  practice  and  the 
prevailing  customs,  excited  the  indignation  of  the  whole  mul- 
titude of  Jews   and  exposed  him  to  the  fury  of  the  populace. 

Yea,  there  is  nothing  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament 
records  which  contains  any  notice  of  baptism's  taking  the  place 
of  circumcisi<m,  or  of  circumcisions' 's  being  discontinued  to  the 
Jews,  or  ever  intended  to  be*  But  if  such  had  been  the  fact, 
this  notice  must  certainly  have  been  taken. 

I  am,  therefore,  warranted  in  saying,  that  the  seal  of  the 
Abrahamick  covenant  was  never  changed  from  circumcision  to 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  39 

baptism,  and  that  circumcision  was  never  abolished  to  the  Jews, 
but  remains  to  this  day  in  full  force. 

Especially  will  this  appear,  when  we  take  into  consideration 
the  perpetuity  of  the  covenant  to  which  it  belonged,  and  the 
order  of  God  to  Abraham  that  every  man-child  among  his  de- 
scendants, without  limitation,  should  be  circumcised. 

Great  stress  is  often  laid  on  the  silence  of  the  Jews  respect- 
ing the  privileges  of  children,  as  though  this  could  not  have 
been,  if  infants  had  not  been  baptized  during  the  apostoiick  age. 
But  from  the  above  view  of  the  case,  this  silence  is  easily  ac- 
counted tor,  allowing  that  infants  were  not  baptized*  There  was 
no  occasion  to  complain,  seeing  the  Abrahamick  covenant  was 
not  abridged,  nor  their  right  to  circumcise  their  children  called 
in  question.  Jf  circumcision  were  ever  a  privilege,  it  was  a 
privilege  to  Jews  still ;  and  upon  Gentiles,  in  their  separate  na- 
tional capacity,  it  had  never  been  conferred.  What  ground, 
therefore,  existed  for  the  Jews  to  complain  ?  Evidently  none. 
And  we  do  not  hear  any  complaint  from  the  Gentiles,  for  they 
did  not,  under  all  the  circumstances,  consider  circumcision  a 
privilege  to  them.  Believers  among  thr m  were  brought  upon, 
a  level  with  believing  Jews  in  point  of  spiritual  privileges, 
and  this  was  enough.  They  had  cause  to  be  satisfied  with  their 
circumstances  in  other  respects.  Hence  we  hear  of  no  com- 
plaint from  any  quarter.  But  this  furnishes  no  argument  what- 
ever for  infant  baptism » 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM;  41 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  fact  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  set  up,  or  the  New  Tes- 
tament dispensation  introduced  during  Christ's  life  and  person- 
al ministry,  particularly  illustrated  andpioved. 

It  was  predicted  by  the  prophet  Isaiah,  that  "  a  king  should 
reign  and  prosper" — that  a  "  child  should  be  born,  and  a  son  gi- 
ven, who  should  be  called  the  mighty  God,  the  everlasting 
Father,  the  prince  of  peace ;  that  the  government  should  be 
upon  his  shoulder,  and  that  of  his  kingdom  there  should  be  no 
end." 

It  was  foretold  by  Daniel,  that  in  the  time  of  the  fourth  great 
kingdom  that  should  arise,  i  e.  in  the  time  of  the  Roman 
monarchy,  u  the  God  of  heaven  would  set  up  a  kingdom  which 
should  break  in  pieces  and  consume  all  these  kingdoms,  and 
stand  for  ever  " 

The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  the  king  thus  promised,  and  his 
New  Testament  church  the  kingdom  which  he  should  estab- 
lish and  reign  over. 

Moreover,  the  prophet  Jeremiah  foretold  that  God  would 
"  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  ot  Israel  and  with  the 
house  of  Judah,  not  according  to  the  Covenant  which  he  made 
with  their  fathers  when  they  came  out  of  Egypt,"  wherein  he 
engaged  to  u  write  his  law  in  their  hearts,  and  that  he  would  be 
their  God,  and  they  should  be  his  people."  This  is  the  same 
as  the  New  Testament,  of  which  Christ  is  the  mediator. 

This  covenant  evidently  began  to  take  effect  during  our 
Lord's  life  and  ministry.  A  very  important  change  then  began 
to  be  effected  in  the  constitution  of  the  church ;  and  the  kingdom  ' 
of  heaven  was  then  set  i«p.  A  chosen  people  was  called  out 
and  separated  from  the  publick  mass,  and  brought  under  a  pe- 
culiar set  of  laws  and  regulations.  And  Christ  then  began  to 
claim  and  to  exercise i  in  various  respects,  the  prerogatives  of 
Zion's  king; 

The  true  rise  of  his  kingdom  was  when  he  began  to  make  dis- 
ciples and  baptize  them*  For  he  said  that  u  except  a  man  be  born 
of  water  and  of  the  spirit^  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 

4* 


42  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

God-."     No  other  period  can  be  assigned  for  its  rise  which  is  so 
reasonable  and  so  consistent  as  this. 

It  is  evidently  not  correct  to  fix  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  as 
some  do,  for  the  change  of  the  dispensations  and  the  rise  of  this 
kingdom,  because  the  Gospel  Church  was  in  existence  before* 
The  three  thousand  converts  were  added  unto  them,  i.  e.  the  com- 
pany of  disciples  previously  formed,  and  many  of  whom  were  as- 
sembled together  on  that  great  and  notable  occasion.  There  is 
no  record  of  any  new  church  being  formed  on  that  day,  nor  of 
any  thing  that  inplies  it ;  and  yet  we  immediately  hear  of  a 
"  church"  to  which  "  the  Lord  added  daily  such  as  'should  be 
saved."  And  this  could  not  be  the  Jewish  church;  for  these 
converts  were  already  members  of  that,  and  hence  could  not  be 
added.  The  church  spoken  of,  was,  indeed,  composed  of  na- 
tive Jews  and  proselytes.  But  it  was  manifestly  distinct  from 
the  body  of  the  nation,  or  from  the  Jewish  church  as  it  had  pre- 
viously existed.  It  was  a  church  which  had  arisen  from  among 
that  people,  or  the  same  church  that  formerly  existed,  brought 
under  a  new  constitution  which  retained  the  sound  part  and  re- 
jected the  rest ;  which  circumstance  shows  that  it  was  altoge- 
ther distinct  from  the  body  of  the  nation. 

And  it  could  not  have  been  then  formed,  because,  as  before 
remarked,  it  was  in  existence  previous  to  that  day.  There  was 
a  body  of  disciples,  or  Christians,  in  being  at  the  commence- 
ment of  that  scene,  prepared  and  authorized  to  receive  mem- 
bers. 

And  there  is  no  mention  made  of  this  church  being  formed  a 
while  previous  to  that  day,  yet  subsequent  to  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus.  No  one,  it  is  presumed,  will  fix  upon  any  part  of  this 
interval  as  the  time  in  which  this  church  was  formed.  Besides, 
it  is  evident  that  it  was  in  being  at  the  very  time  of  the  resurrec- 
tion. Paul's  declaration  that  "  he  was  seen  alive  after  his  pas- 
sion, of  more  than  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,"  is  satisfactory 
proof  of  this. 

Further :  The  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  the 
twelve  a  little  before  his  death,  an  ordinance  which  belongs  ex- 
clusively to  the  New  Testament  church,  shows  that  it  existed 
then,  and  that  the  disciples  were  a  part  of  it.  And  hence  we 
find  that  it  was  formed  previous  to  the  death  of  Christ.  And  so 
we  may  proceed,  step  by  step,  till  we  come  to  the  period  when 
he  began  to  collect  a  company  of  baptized  disciples  ;  when  we 
shall,  undoubtedly,  find  the  origin  of  that  church,  or  kingdom, 
which  was  like  a  grain  of  mustard  seed  that  is  very  small  at 
first,  but  grows  and  becomes  a  tree  ;  or  like  the  stone  which, 
in  Nebuchadnezzar's  dream,  was  cut  out  of  the  mountain  with- 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  43 

out  hands,  and  became  a  great  mountain,  and  filled  the  whole 
earth. 

Our  Lord's  saying  in  Galilee,  some  time  after  he  had  made 
and  baptized  disciples,  "  Repent,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
at  hand,"  forms  no  valid  objection  against  this  view  of  the  sub- 
ject Neither  does  his  subsequently  bidding  the  apostles  to 
preach  the  same  doctrine  in  the  places  which  they  visited.  For 
no  more  is  necessarily  implied  in  this  form  of  expression  than 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  just  about  to  make  its  appearance 
in  these  places,  which  would  be  perfectly  consistent  with  the 
idea  that  it  had  already  been  set  up  elsewhere.  The  word 
"  engike,"  rendered  "  at  hand"  is  in  another  place  rendered 
"  nigh."  "  Be  ye  sure  of  this,  the  kingdom  of  Cod  is  come 
{engike)  nigh  unto  you.'7  There  is,  therefore,  nothing  in  this 
term  which  forbids  the  idea  that  our  Lord's  kingdom  had  al- 
ready come,  or  that  the  New  Testament  church  was  already 
formed  in  some  other  part  of  Judea. 

Christ  was,  indeed,  bom  a  king  ;  but  he  did  not  probably  de- 
clare himself  as  such,  and  openly  commence  the  work  of"  order- 
ing and  establishing  his  kingdom,"  till  the  time  of  entering  on 
hispublick  ministry,  "  after  the  baptism  which  John  preached." 
It  was  one  part  of  John's  office  to  proclaim  his  Messiahship,  and 
to  point  him  out  to  the  people.  His  real  character  and  office 
were  also  testified  by  a  voice  from  heaven,  at  the  time  he  was 
baptized,  saying,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  hear  him." 

Directly  upon  this,  he  asserted  the  prerogatives  of  the  Re- 
deemer and  King  of  Zion  ;  performed  various  regal  acts,  ap- 
pointed publick  officers  in  his  kingdom,  and  gave  laws  and  in- 
stitutions upon  his  own  mediatorial  authority,  particularly  bap- 
tism, and  afterwards  the  Lord's  Supper.  His  style  of  speaking 
was,  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you."  Hence  it  is  said,  "  he 
spake  with  authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes." 

This  all  shows  that  his  kingdom  had  come,  and  that  the  new 
dispensation  and  the  new  constitution  and  organization  of  the 
church  which  had  been  predicted,  were  actually  introduced. 

There  was,  manifestly,  some  great  change  in  the  state  and  con- 
stitution of  the  church  denoted  by  the  setting  up,  or  coming,  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  No  one  can  reasonably  question  this. 
Yet  many  insist  that  the  change  did  not  take  place  till  after  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  But  what  has  been  said 
plainly  shows  that  it  took  place  before,  even  at,  or  near  the  com- 
mencement of  his  publick  ministry. 

This  being  an  important  point,  and  one  which,  if  substantia- 
ted,  will  go  far  to  settle  this  whole  controversy ;  I  would  re- 
mark still  further,  that  the  words  of  Christ,  Mathew,.xi,  11*12., 


14  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

furnish  clear  proof  thereof.  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you*  among 
them  that  are  born  of  women,  there  hath  not  risen  a  greater^ 
than  John  the  Baptist ;  notwithstanding  he  that  is  least  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  greater  than  he.  And  from  the  days  of 
John  the  Baptist  until  now,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  suffereth 
violence,  and  the  violent  take  it  by  force." 

It  should  be  particularly  observed,  that,  previous  to  his 
making  this  declaration,  he  made  and  baptized  many  disciples; 
and  that  some  of  the  twelve,  at  least,  wer^  administrators  of  this 
ordinance ;  (for  "Jesus  baptized  not  himself,  but  his  disciples ;") 
and  this  being  a  ministerial,  or  official  act,  it  is  clear  that  they 
were,  at  th^  time,  authorized  ministers  of  the  gospel.  Christ 
had  already  given  them  a  commission,  to  some  extent,  to  teach 
and  minister  in  his  name.  Not  only  this;  but,  previous  to  his 
making  this  declaration,  he  had  expressly  called  and  appointed 
the  twelve  to  be  apostles,  and  had  sent  them  before  his  face  into 
the  cities  of  Israel  to  preach  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom,  and 
work  miracles  in  his  name. 

He  manifestly  means,  therefore,  by  "  the  least  in  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,"  the  least  of  the  apostles.  The  least  of  them 
was  greater  than  John,  because  they  acted  immediately  under  his 
mediatorial  authority  ;  and  were  appointed  to  announce  that  he 
had  actually  come  ;  and  were  endowed  with  greater  light  and 
more  eminent  gifts  for  the  perfecting  of  the  church.  Hence  it 
appears  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  had  actually  come :  other- 
wise  the  apostles  could  not  be  in  it,  and  not  only  in  it,  but 
office- bearers  therein  of  the  highest  description. 

Moreover,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  here  said  to  suffer  vi- 
olence from  the  days  of  John  the  baptist  u  until  the  time 
that  he  spake  these  words,  and  "  the  violent  took  it  by  force." 
Whatever  be  the  meaning  of  these  phrases,  they  show,  conclu- 
sively, that  this  kingdom  had  th*>n  commenced  The  meaning 
probably  is,  that  it  was  eagerly  sought,  and  the  subjects  of  it 
escaped  for  their  lives  to  the  ark  of  safety,  and  pressed  their 
way  through  all  opposition  and  temptation.  They  were  so  im- 
pressed with  their  spiritual  need,  and  with  the  fulness  and 
mercy  of  Christ,  that  they  were  resolved  to  venture  upon  him, 
and  risk  all  consequences.  They  took  the  kingdom  as  it  were 
by  force.  At  any  rate,  it  could  not  have  been  taken  in  this 
manner,  if  it  had  not  existed. 

The  words  "  from  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist,"  plainly  de- 
note that  this  kingdom  was  set  up  either  before,  or  at  the  close  • 
of  his  ministry.     The  real  period  of  its  rise  appears  to  have 
been  a   little  before  John  finished  his  work.     Christ  entered 
upon  his  publick  ministry,  and  made  and  baptized  disciplesr. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  45 

while  John  was  yet  preaching  and  baptizing ;  and  the  people 
were  eager  to  hear  him  and  to  become  his  disciples.  All  which 
shows  that  the  gospel  kingdom  was  then  introduced. 

This  fact  is  still  further  supported  by  the  parallel  passage  in 
Luke,  xvi.  16.  "  The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John  : 
since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and  every  man 
pressethintoit"  This  declaration  unquestionably  proves  the 
previous  introduction  of  this  kingdom ;  for  every  one  can  sec 
that  no  one  could  press  into  it,  if  it  had  not  then  come.  For 
he  is  not  speaking  of  the  world  of  glory,  but  ot  the  kingdom 
of  God,  as  set  up  in  this  world,  in  the  days  of  the  gospel,  agree- 
ably to  ancient  prophecy.  It  is  therefore  clear  that  this  king- 
dom commenced  a  little  before,  or  at  the  close  of  John's  min- 
istry. 

Again:  chap.  xvi.  20,  21.  "And  when  he  was  demanded 
of  the  Pharisees  when  the  kingdom  of  God  should  come,  he 
answered  them  and  said,  the  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with 
observation.  Neither  shall  they  say,  lo  here,  or  lo  there,  for 
behold,  *he  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you,"  i.  e.  among  you, 
or  in  the  midst  of  you.  So  the  words  might  have  been  render- 
ed. And  this  is  obviously  the  true  sense.  He  could  not  mean 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  in  the  hearts  of  those  proud, 
unbelieving  Pharisees  ;  but  simply  that  it  was  among  them,  or 
in  the  midst  of  them;  although  they  perceived  it  not,  inasmuch 
as  they  had  wholly  mistaken  its  nature  and  end.  It  did  not 
appear  in  that  external  pomp  and  grandeur  which  they  had 
been  expectiug  The  proof  from  this  passage  is  decisive: 
"The  kingdom  of  God  is  among  you,  or  in  the  midst  of  you." 
The  New  Testament  church,  called  the  kingdom  of  God,  was 
certainly  formed  and  established  during  the  life  of  Christ ;  and 
it  was  no  other  than  that  select  company  of  disciples  which  he 
collected  and  baptized. 

We  have  still  further  proof  of  this  point,  in  the  event  of  our 
Lord's  riding  into  Jerusalem  upon  an  ass,  attended  by  the  mul- 
titude of  his  disciples,  in  fulfilment  of  the  prophesy  of  Zech- 
ariah.  "  Shout,  0  Zion,  behold  thy  King  cometh  unto  thee, 
riding  apon  an  ass,  and  upon  a  colt  the  foal  of  an  ass."  Here, 
therefore,  was  both  &  King  and  a  kingdom. 

Again  :  When  our  Lord  was  arraigned  before  Pilate,  he  ac- 
knowledged himself  to  be  the  King  of  the  Jews,  and,  by  way 
of  explanation,  and  for  the  prevention  of  all  alarm  as  to  his 
claiming  secular  favour  or  honour,  he  said}  "My  kingdom  is 
not  of  this  world.''  It  was  purely  spiritual.  He  was  there- 
fore a.King  before  he  suffered,  and  had  a  kingdom,  which  con 


46  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

sisted,  at  the  time,  of  believing  Jews,  or  of  the  company  of  Km 
disciples. 

The  same  might  be  shown  still  further  from  many  of  his  par- 
ables, which  clearly  represent  his  gospel  kingdom  as  actually 
set  up,  though,  at  first,  very  small,  and  by  no  means  answering 
the  expectations  of  the  carnally  minded. 

The  circumstance  also  previously  mentioned  of :  his  adminis- 
tering the  Lord's  Supper — an  ordinance  of  this  kingdom,  to  the 
twelve,  while  yet  with  them,  shows  that  this  kingdom  had 
been  already  introduced. 

It  is  of  very  great  importance  to  understand  this  matter  cor- 
rectly. For  if  the  change  of  the  dispensations,  aud  the  setting 
up  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  the  New  Testament  church, 
took  place  during  our  Lord's  life  and  ministry,  then  the  in- 
structions which  he  then  gave,  and  the  practice  which  he  then 
introduced,  will  reflect  much  light  upon  the  question  at  issue, 
as  well   as  upon  the  nature  of  this  kingdom  generally. 

Many  overlook  and  reject  all  which  is  said  about  Christ's  ma- 
king and  baptizing  disciples  during  his  life,  and  all  which  was 
done  by  the  apostles  undertheir  first  mission  to  the  cities  of  Is- 
rael, as  having  nothing  to  do  with  the  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism, from  the  notion  that  the  New  Testament  dispensation 
was  not  introduced  till  after  his  death  and  resurrection  ;  yea, 
not  till  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  that  all  which  was  done  pre- 
viously was  under  the  law. 

But  this  is  a  gross  mistake.  It  is  abundantlv  manifest  that 
the  new  covenant,  or  new  dispensation,  was  introduced  during 
our  Lord's  life,  and  at,  or  near  the  commencement  of  his  pub- 
lick  ministiy.  What,  therefore,  was  then  said  and  done  by 
him  and  his  disciples,  belongs  to  this  very  question,  and  goes 
to  settle  it  in  favour  of  believers'*  baptism  only  ;  as  no  order  was 
given  for  the  baptism  of  any  others,  and  no  others  were,  in  fact, 
baptized. 

As  the  introduction  of  the  Sinai  dispensation  did  not  inter- 
fere with  the  Abrahamick;  so  the  introduction  of  the  New 
Testament  dispensation  did  not  interfere  with  either.  The 
ceremonial  code  was  indeed  eventually  disannulled,  but  there 
was  no  necessity  for  this  being  done  previous  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  new  covenant  dispensation. 

The  change,  denoted  by  the  setting  up  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  or  by  making  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel 
and  Judah,  appears  to  have  been  effected  by  degrees,  till  the 
whole  of  the  New  Testament  economy  was  settled.  Existing 
believers,  or  such  as  professed  to  be  of  this  character,  were 
collected  together  by  our  Lord  and  formed  into  a  separate  com? 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  47 

|>any,  or  society,  from  the  nation  at  large,  and  were  initiated 
by  baptism.  And  to  this  society  he  gave  ministers,  laws  and 
privileges,  till  his  whole  will  was  declared.  And  it  continu- 
ed to  increase  and  spread. 

Although  it  is  often  plead  that  no  church  essentially  new  has 
been  set  up,  all  must  admit  that  the  form  and  constitution  of  the 
church  are  greatly  altered,  i  here  certainly  was  a  time  when 
the  believers  in  Jesus  began  to  be  considered  the  J\ew  Testament 
Church,  in  distinction  from  the  body  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
whereas  they  had  not  been  thus  considered  before  ;  whether  it 
be  supposed  that  they  were  called  out,  and  separated  from  the 
great  body  of  the  nation  aud  its  rulers ;  or  that  the  unbelieving- 
part  were  cut  off,  or  excommunicated,  leaving  the  believing  part 
to  subsist,  and  act,  in  a  separate  capacity. 

And  this  change,  or  revolution,  must  have  been  the  introduction 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  is  spoken  of  in  the  scriptures, 
both  of  the  Old  and  JNew  Testaments,  with  so  much  emphasis. 

The  question,  therefore,  now  before  us,  is,  when  did  this 
change  take  place  \  The  true  answer,  as  I  have  fully  shown, 
is,  at  or  near  the  commencement  of  our  Lord's  publick  ministry. 
It  is  evident,  also,  that  it  consisted  in  calling  out  a  believing 
people  from  the  body  of  the  nation,  rather  than  in  a  formal  ex- 
communication of  the  unbelieving  part.  This  calling  out  of  the 
true  Israel,  and  embodying  them  under  the  Messiah,  prepared 
the  way  for  the  ultimate  breaking  of  the  Sinai  covenant  with  the 
body  of  the  nation,  and  their  tinal  rejection. 

I  admit  that  Christ  has  never  had  but  one  church  in  the 
world,  which  has  existed  under  different  dispensations  and  con- 
stitutions. 

The  Abrahamick  church  was  the  same  that  existed  in  the 
days  that  were  before  the  flood  ;  yea,  from  the  first  dawn  of 
mercy  to  our  world  ;  yet  it  was  under  a  very  different  constitu- 
tion. 

In  like  manner,  the  Christian  church  is  the  same  as  the 
Abrahamick  ;  yet  under  a  very  different  form  and  constitution, 
one  that  is  much  more  perfect ;  and  one  that  is  intended  to  be 
final,  as  to  this  world. 

But  although  the  church  is  now  essentially  the  same  as  for- 
merly, it  is  never  styled  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  until  Christ,  the 
Lord,  actually  came  down  from  heaven  to  reign  in  human  na- 
ture, and  to  give  it  its  ultimate  type  and  privileges.  The 
kingdom  of  God  had  not  come  before,  in  the  sense  which  the 
scriptures  intend  by  this  phrase.  The  church  was  before  na- 
tional, at  least  among  the  Jews,  and  was  connected  and  identified 


18  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

with  a  worldly  kingdom.  But  under  the  gospel,  it  is  wholly 
spiritual  in  its  organization  ;  separate  from  all  worldly  associa- 
tions ;  and  from  all  the  laws  and  regulations  of  men  ;  and 
placed  under  the  mediatorial  government  of  Christ.  Yet  it  is 
so  formed  and  constituted  as  to  live  among  any  nation,  and  under 
any  form  of  civil  government ;  and  the  members,  as  citizens, 
are  expressly  required  to  be  subject  to  the  powers  that  be.  It 
is  under  this  new  and  final  constitution  and  form,  that  it  is  called 
the  kingdom  of  God,  or  of  heaven. 

As  when  a  new  king  commences  his  reign,  he  requires  of  his 
subjects  the  oath  of  allegiance,  and  makes  new  laws  and  regu- 
lations; so  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  when  he  became  incarnate, 
and  entered  upon  his  mediatorial  kingdom,  by  the  consent  and 
appointment  of  the  Father  and  the  Spirit,  commenced  his  reign 
by  calling  his  subjects  to  swear  allegiance  to  him  ;  or,  in  other 
words,  by  calling  them  openly  to  owu  and  submit  to  him  as 
their  Saviour  and  King,  and  to  receive  a  significant  badge  of  this 
acknowledgment  and  submission  in  baptism,  by  which  they 
might  be  openly  and  emphatically  known  and  distinguished 
from  the  rest  of  the  people. 

He  gave  also  other  institutions  and  laws,  whereby  his  reign 
is  distinguished,  and  his  kingdom  perfected. 

This  kingdom  is  both  spiritually  and  visibly  diverse  from  all 
others,  as  it  was  foretold  that  it  should  be.  None  have  a  right 
of  admission  by  virtue  of  their  natural  birth,  as  in  other  king- 
doms, even  in  the  Jewish  kingdom  ;  but  they  must  be  called  into 
it  by  renewing  grace;  otherwise  they  have  no  right  to  enter.  And 
although  men,  having  no  access  to  the  hearts  of  others,  cannot 
wholly  exclude  those  of  unsound  minds,  they  ought  not  to  re- 
ceive any  but  such  as  give  credible  evidence  of  grace.  The 
members  of  the  gospel  church  are,  by  profession,  Christians  and 
brethren — a  household  of  faith,  a  select,  spiritual  society. 

Now,  such  a  state  of  things  having  been  actually  introduced, 
during  our  Lord's  continuance  on  earth,  the  apostles  would 
naturally  take  this  to  be  the  rule  of  their  procedure  afterwards. 
They  would  not  depart  from  the  precedent  established,  without 
express  instructions.  There  is  great  weight  in  this  argument 
from  the  early  type  of  the  Christian  church,  as  a  society  of  be- 
lievers only,  to  show  that  infant  baptism  is  wrong.  As  we 
should  naturally  expect  that  Christ  would  settle  the  question 
who  were  to  belong  to  his  kingdom,  and  who  were  to  be  bapti- 
zed, in  the  very  beginning  of  his  reign  ;  so  we  find  that  he  did, 
and  he  gave  no  different  instructions  afterwards.  All  that  has 
been  observed  under  this  head  goes  to  show  that  I  have  given 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  49 

the  true  sense  of  the  apostolick  commission.  Every  attempt  to 
include  infants  fails.  This  commission  must  be  altered  and 
amended,  and  the  very  nature  of  the  gospel  kingdom  changed 
from  what  we  find  it  in  the  gospel  records,  to  make  out  a  war- 
rant for  infant  baptism.  But  we  have  certainly  no  right  to  do 
this.     It  is  impiety  and  presumption  to  do  it. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM,  51 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  memorable  passage.  Acts,  ii.  38— 41 ,  particularly  examined. 

The  practice  of  the  apostles,  acting  under  the  immediate  in- 
spiralion  of  the  Spirit,  as  well  as  the  commission  which  they 
received  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  is  naturally  regarded  as  a  proper 
source  of  information  in  relation  to  the  piesent  question. 

Hence  great  efforts  are  made  by  Fedobaptists  to  show  that 
the  apostles  did,  in  fact,  practise  the  baptism  of  infants,  and 
consequently,  that  this  shows  how  they  understood  their  com- 
mission. We  frequently  hear  it  asserted,  in  positive  language, 
that  the  apostles  practised  infant  baptism. 

If  this  could  be  clearly  made  out,  I  admit  that  the  practice 
would  be  correct.  In  that  case,  it  would  appear  that  Christ 
gave  them  additional  instructions  to  those  contained  in  the  afore- 
said commission. 

But  it  evidently  cannot  be  made  out.  The  apostles  have 
given  no  notice  of  having  received  additional  instructions  on 
this  point,  which  include  infants ;  neither  are  there  any  facts  re- 
corded which  show  that  they  did  baptize  them.  But  their 
whole  history,  as  we  have  in  fact  seen  already,  and  shall  see 
more  fully  hereafter,  goes  to  establish  believers'  baptism  as  the 
only  gospel  baptism. 

It  is,  indeed,  argued  from  the  passage  referred  to  at  the  head 
of  this  chapter,  that  the  promise  mentioned  is  that  memorable 
promise  made  to  Abraham,  that  God  would  be  a  God  to  him 
and  to  his  seed  after  him ;  that  baptism  is  represented  as  a  to- 
ken, or  seal,  of  this  promise,  as  circumcision  was  previously; 
and  that  the  promise  is  to  believers  and  their  children  as  it  al> 
ways  had  been.  So  that  here  is  a  warrant  for  the  baptism  of 
infants. 

But  a  careful  examination  of  the  passage  will  show  that  this 
construction  is  unwarranted  and  grossly  erroneous.  It  reads 
thus :  "  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  repent,  and  be  baptized 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  ;  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
For  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all 


*>2  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call, 
And  with  many  oilier  words  did  he  testify  and  exhort,  saying; 
save  yourselves  from  this  untoward  generation.  Then  they 
that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized  :  and  the  same  day 
there  were  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls." 

The  promise  here  referred  to  is  evidently  not  the  before- 
mentioned  promise  to  Abraham,  but  the  promise  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  is  contained  in  the  passage  itself,  and  repeatedly 
mentioned  in  the  connexion,  and  which  was  contained  in  a 
prophecy  of  Joel  that  respected  that  very  reason,  and  was  ex- 
pressly quoted  as  then  fulfilled.  God  had  said  by  him,  chap, 
ii.  28,  32,  Q(  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  that  I  will  pour 
out  ray  Spirit  upon  all  flesh — and  whosoever  shall  call  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  delivered."  Christ  had  also  said, 
while  he  was  with  the  apostles,  John,  vii.  38,  39,  "  He  that 
believeth  on  me,  out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living 
water.  This  spake  he  of  the  Spirit  which  they  that  believe  on 
him  should  receive  :  for  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given  ;  be- 
cause that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified."  Also,  chap,  xiv.  16,  17* 
"  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter 
— even  the  Spirit  of  truth."  And  after  his  resurrectiob,  he 
bid  them,  Acts,  i.  4,  wait  at  Jerusalem  "  for  the  promise  of  the 
Father,  which,  said  he,  ye  have  heard  of  me,"  alluding  to  the 
above. 

Accordingly,  the  apostle  Peter  reasoned  on  that  occasion  in 
this  plain  and  forcible  manner,  chap,  ii,  33  :  "  Therefore,  being 
by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having  received  of  the 
Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this 
which  ye  now  see  and  hear." 

With  this  ever-blessed  promise  fully  in  view,  which  was 
then  actually j  and  most  strikingly  fulfilling,  he  said  to  the  awa- 
kened multitude,  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you, 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye 
shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  for  the  promise  is  un- 
to you  and  to  your  children,"  &c.  Now,  from  the  whole  re- 
cord, and  its  connexion,  what  can  be  plainer  than  that  he  refer- 
red to  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which,  in  case  they 
should  believe  and  be  baptized,  they  should  receive.  He  had 
just  been  citing  a  prophecy  in  which  this  promise  was  contain- 
ed, and  had  applied  it  expressly  to  that  occasion.  He  had  also 
expressly  referred  to  Christ's  "  being  exalted,"  and  to  his  hav- 
ing received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Spirit,"  and  had 
consequently  affirmed  that  "  he  had  shed  forth  what  they  then 
saw  and  heard."  Moreover,  the  apostles  and  brethren,  as  di- 
rected by  Christ,  had  been  patiently  waiting  for  this  very  scene, 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  53 

It  is,  therefore,  exceedingly  evident,  that  he  did  not  refer  to  that 
special  and  comprehensive  promise  made  to  Abraham  and  his 
seed,  but  to  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  sanctifying 
and  comforting  influences,  and  to  a  certain  extent,  in  his  mi- 
raculous influences,  which  was  to  them,  and  their  children, 
and  to  all  that  were  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  should 
call,  precisely  on  the  same  condition  of  personal  repentance 
and  submission  to  Christ. 

The  promise  of  the  Spirit  as  a  sanctifier  and  comforter,  is 
made  expressly  to  all  that  believe.  Hence  Paul  says,  Eph.  i. 
13,  "  After  that  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed  with  that  Holy 
Spirit  of  promise,"  And,  Romans,  viii.  9,  u  If  any  man  have 
not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his." 

Here,  therefore,  we  see  that  there  is  a  conspicuous  promise 
which  belongs  to  all  believers — oue  which  they  are  entitled  to 
immediately  upon  their  believing  and  submitting  to  Christ,  and 
being  baptized  in  his  name.  And  in  addition  to  this,  many,  in 
that  early  age  of  the  church,  received  the  miraculous  operations 
of  the  Spirit.  But  these  are  not  the  most  material  things  con- 
tained in  the  promise.  The  great  and  peculiar  blessing  was 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  sanctify  and  comfort  them — to  illumine 
their  hearts  and  seal  their  forgiveness  and  redemption.  And  to 
this  the  apostle  manifestly  refers— a  promise  made  alike  to  pa- 
rents and  children  and  all  others,  both  near  and  afar  off,  per- 
sonally, upon  their  personally  embracing  the  gospel. 

It  was  one  which  perfectly  suited  the  occasion — one  that  was 
peculiar  to  all  believers — and,  therefore,  one  that  tended  taen- 
force  the  direction  given  to  those  distressed  and  agonizing 
sinners. 

This,  therefore,  was  not  the  aforesaid  comprehensive  pro- 
mise to  Abraham ;  nor  was  it  a  promise  that  if  the  parents 
would  repent  and  be  baptized,  they  should  not  only  themselves 
receive  the  Spirit  and  be  saved,  but  their  children  likewise  ; 
or  that  their  children  should  also  repent  and  receive  the  Spirit 
upon  their  account,  or  in  consequence  of  their  faith.  But  the 
promise  was  to  the  children  personally  in  the  same  sense  that 
it  was  to  the  parents ;  and  it  was  to  the  one,  on  the  same  con- 
dition that  it  was  to  the  other:  and  it  was  equally  upon  the 
same  condition  to  all  that  were  afar  off.  Whoever  repented 
and  submitted  to  Christ,  should  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost — or  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise,  as  a  sanctifier  and  com* 
forter. 

Hence,  this  declaration  of  Peter  is  no  more  a  warrant  for 
baptizing  the  children  of  believers  for  their  sake,  than  the  chil- 
dren of  unbelievers.  For  there  is  nothing  more  promised  here 
to  the  former,  than  ta  the  latter— yea,  nothing  more  than  is 

5* 


54  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

promised  to  all  others— to  mankind  generally.  The  very  same 
promise,  andonf/ie  very  same  conditionals  indiscriminately  made. 
Every  repenting  and  believing  sinner,  whether  parent  or  child* 
male  or  female,  bond  or  free,  at  home  or  afar  off,  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  the  plain  and  obvious 
sense  of  the  passage. 

Therefore,  it  does  not  give  the  least  countenance  to  the  prac- 
tice of  baptizing  children  upon  the  faith  of  their  parents.  We 
might  derive  as  good  an  argument  from  this  passage  for  bapti- 
zing all  the  ends  of  the  earth  upon  the  faith  of  the  parents  ad  • 
dressed  by  Peter,  as  their  immediate  children.  For  the  pro- 
mise is  as  positively  said  to  be  to  all  them  that  were  afar  off, 
as  to  their  children.  If  therefore  this  promise  gave  a  right  to 
the  baptism  of  the  latter,  upon  the  faith  of  their  parents,  it  did 
equally  to  the  former.  This  consequence  is  unavoidable.  And 
hence  it  is,  of  itself,  sufficient  to  overthrow  the  argument ;. 
for  an  argument  that  proves  too  much,  proves  nothing. 

Besides,  the  words  to  your  children,  include  the  adult  as  well 
as  the  infant  children ;  so  that  the  argument  is  precisely  a* 
strong  for  the  baptism  of  the  former,  upon  their  parents'  faith, 
as  of  the  latter.  Here  again  it  proves  too  much,  and  so  de- 
stroys itself. 

How  astonishing  it  is  that  men  will  build  this  practice  upon 
such  a  foundation  !  Here  is  certainly  nothing  that  intimates 
that  children  were  baptized  on  the  faith  of  parents,  or  were 
ever  intended  to  be.  Here  is  not  even  any  thing  more  promis- 
ed to  believing  parents  respecting  their  children,  (whatever 
may  be  promised  elsewhere,)  than  is  promised  to  unbelieving 
parents  respecting  theirs.  The  promise  is  to  each  personally^ 
and  to  all  of  every  rank,  and  every  where,  personally,  whom 
God  shall  call  by  the  gospel,  and  on  the  same  personal  condi- 
tion. Repentance,  in  every  instance,  as  it  respects  parents, 
children,  or  strangers,  is  before  baptism.  u  Repent  and  be  bap- 
tized,  every  one  of  you."  0  that  this  blessed  doetrine  had  al- 
ways been  taught ! 

Will  any  sober  Christian  come  forward  and  say  that  there 
were  infants  baptized  on  that  occasion  ?  If  any  dare  do  it, 
does  it  not  manifestly  become  them  to  tell  how  great  a  propor- 
tion of  the  three  thousand  were  adults,  and  how  great  a  pro- 
portion were  infants  ?  But  the  very  attempt  to  designate  the 
number  of  each  would  confound  any  one.  Yea,  it  would  con- 
found any  one  to  attempt  to  make  out  that  a  single  infant  was 
then  baptized.  And  there  is  certainly  no  mention  made  of 
the  infants  being  brought  another  day.    It  is  evident,  there- 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM.  55 

fore,  that  this  whole  account — this  memorable  transaction — has 
nothing  at  all  to  do  with  infant  baptism. 

The  comprehensive  promise  to  Abraham  that  God  would  be 
his  God  did  indeed  include  all  spiritual  blessings,  and  it  inclu- 
ded them  to  all  his  true  seed,  and  therefore  this  particular  pro- 
mise was  included  that  I  have  been  treating  of,  and  was  emi- 
nently fulfilled  on  the  occasion  referred  to.  But  this  is  no  evi- 
dence that  this  was  the  promise  particularly  intended.  The 
blessing  here  specified  by  the  apostle  was  also  included  in  the 
promise  to  our  first  parents,  that "  the^eed  of  the  woman  should 
bruise  the  serpent's  head."  Also  in  the  following  promise  of 
God  in  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah.  "  My  righteousness  shall  be 
forever,  and  my  salvation  from  generation  to  generation."  But 
will  any  one  say  that  either  of  these  promises  was  the  one  par- 
ticularly referred  to  by  Peter;  and,  thence,  undertake  to  draw 
an  argument  for  infant  baptism  ?  This  might  as  well  be  done, 
as  to  say  that  the  aforesaid  promise  to  Abraham  was  referred 
to,  and  thence  to  infer  the  duty  of  baptizing  infants. 

There  are  other  promises  besides  that  made  to  Abraham,  and 
reference  may  be  had  to  these  as  well  as  to  that,  by  the  inspi- 
red apostles  on  different  occasions.  To  one  of  them,  instead  of 
the  promise  to  Abraham,  which  was  sealed  by  circumcision,  re- 
ference is  most  certainly  had  in  the  present  case, 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  57 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  three  instances  of  the  Baptism  of  a  Household,  recorded  Acts? 
xvi.  14, 15,  33,  and  I.  Cor,  i.  IS, particularly  examined. 

Great  stress  being  laid  on  the  baptism  of  the  households  of 
Lydia,  the  Jailer,  and  Stephanas,  as  so  many  examples  of  in- 
fant or  household  baptism  in  the  Pedobaptist  sense  of  the 
phrase,  a  particular  examination  of  each  is  required. 

I  will  begin  with  that  of  Lydia,  Acts,  xvi.  14,  15.  "  And  a 
certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  purple  of  the  city  of 
Thyatira,  which  worshipped  God,  heard  us  ;  whose  heart  the 
Lord  opened,  that  she  attended  unto  the  things  which  were  spo- 
ken of  Paul.  And  when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  house- 
hold^  she  besought  us,  saying,  if  ye  have  judged  me  to  be 
faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house,  and  abide  there. 
And  she  constrained  us.  ' 

To  make  out,  from  this  instance,  an  apostolick  example  for 
infant  baptism,  it  must,  in  the  first  place,  be  made  to  appear 
that  Lydia's  household  contained  infants,  properly  so  called. 
And  in  the  second,  that  they  were  baptized  on  her  faith.  Un- 
less both  of  these  points  are  proved,  it  is  not  an  example  for 
the  baptism  of  infants,  or  unadult  children.  But  neither  has 
ever  been  proved,  and  neither  can  be  proved,  for  the  proof 
does  not  exist. 

It  is,  moreover,  necessary  to  the  argument,  to  prove  that 
this  household  contained  none  hut  infants,  or  unadult  children  ; 
for  there  is  precisely  the  same  evidence  that  the  whole  house- 
hold were  baptized  upon  Lydia's  faith,  as  that  any  of  them 
were.  If  it  be  admitted  as  possible,  and  even  probable,  that 
there  were  others  in  the  family  besides  infants,  who  were  bap- 
tized upon  their  own  faith,  the  argument  is  lost.  For  the 
main  force  of  it  lies  in  this,  that  there  is  no  express  mention 
made  of  any  one's  faith  except  hers ;  and  yet  there  is  a  re- 
cord of  the  baptism  of  the  household  in  connexion  with  hers. 
If,  therefore,  notwithstanding  this  manner  of  recording  the  bap- 
tism of  the  household,  it  be  admitted  both  possible  and  probable 
that  there  were  some  in  it  that  were  adults,  and  were  baptized 


58  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

on  their  own  faith,  it  will  follow  that  all  might  have  been  of 
this  description.  If  the  wrords  do  not  necessarily  exclude  all 
adults  from  the  household  who  were  baptized  on  their  own 
faith,  they  contain  no  solid  argument  for  the  baptism  of  any 
upon  the  faith  of  Lydia.  For  if  there  were  any  adult  belie- 
vers, they  might  have  all  been  such.  And  hence  there  is  no 
proof  that  she  had  any  infants  who  received  baptism  upon  her 
account. 

And,  now,  is  there  any  thing,  in  fact,  in  this  record,  which 
excludes  the  idea  that  there  were  adults  in  her  family,  who 
were  baptized  on  their  own  faith  ?  There  evidently  is  not. 
The  word  household  is  not  limited  to  infants,  as  every  one 
knows.  It  contains  the  members  of  a  family,  be  they  adults, 
or  infants,  or  both. 

The  household  of  a  man  includes,  not  only  his  children,  but 
his  wife  and  servants — all  that  compose  his  family.  But  when 
the  household  of  a  woman  is  spoken  of,  it  seems  to  be  implied 
that  she  has  no  husband.  Nevertheless,  she  may  have  adults 
in  her  family,  as  well  as  infants;  or  it  may  consist  altogether  of 
adults.  It  may  consist  altogether  of  adult  servants  and  board- 
ers ;  or  it  may  consist  of  children  that  have  arrived  to  adult 
age  ;  or  of  these  and  some  infants.  From  this  known  use  of 
the  word,  household,  it  will  follow  that  Lydia's  household 
might  have  contained  adults  that  were  baptized  on  their  own 
faith.  And  if  it  might  have  contained  adults  of  this  descrip- 
tion, it  might  have  contained  no  other ;  notwithstanding  no 
one's  faith  is  expressly  mentioned  but  hers.  Yea,  it  is  not  only 
possible,  but  probable,  that  she  had  adults  in  her  family  that 
were  capable  of  acting,  and  did  act,  for  themselves,  in  this  im- 
portant concern. 

This  appears  from  her  occupation  and  rank.  It  is  most  nat- 
ural to  conclude  from  the  history,  that  her  home  was  in  the 
city  of  Thyatira,  three  hundred  miles  distant ;  and  that  she 
was  here  on  business  merely — for  the  purpose  of  disposing  of 
her  purple  goods ;  and,  of  course,  she  would  be  very  likely 
to  have  adult  servants,  or  attendants.  And  if  she  actually  had 
small  children,  it  is  not  probable  that  she  brought  them  with 
her  upon  such  an  undertaking. 

There  is,  therefore,  the  highest  probability  that  she  had 
adults  in  her  household,  who  were  bound  to  act  for  themselves, 
and  who  were  baptized  upon  their  own  faith.  And  if  there 
might  have  been  such  in  her  family,  there  might  have  been 
no  other.  Yea,  it  is  probable  there  were  no  other.  The  ar- 
gument, therefore,  is  lost. 

The  words  certainly  do  not,  of  necessity,  imply  that  she  had 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  59 

infant  children,  and  that  they  were  baptized  on  her  faith. 
The  most  that  any  one  can  pretend  to  say  is,  that  it  is  more 
probable  that  she  had,  than  that  she  had  not. 

But  will  this  do,  even  allowing  the  statement  to  be  correct, 
to  found  so  important  a  practice  upon  as  that  of  infant  baptism  ? 
Was  the  matter  left  to  be  determined  by  mere  probability  ?  It 
is  unreasonable  to  conclude  this. 

But  even  this  argument  fails.  For  there  is  the  greater  pro- 
bability that  they  were  all  believers,  as  above  stated.  This  is 
especially  the  case,  when  we  connect  the  subsequent  account, 
related  verse  40.  "  And  they  went  out  of  the  prison,  (viz.  Paul 
and  Silas,)  and  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia,  and  when  they 
had  seen  the  brethren,  they  comforted  them  and  departed." 

Now,  who  were  these  brethren  ?  Were  they  some  of  Paul's 
company  whom  he  had  left  there,  or  who  had  collected  there 
while  he  and  Silas  were  cast  into  prison  ?  Or  were  they  the 
members  of  her  household  ?  It  is  altogether  most  probable 
that  they  were  the  latter,  as  we  have  no  account  that  Paul  left 
any  of  his  company  there,  provided  he  had  any  more  with  him 
at  the  time  than  Silas.  The  phraseology  also,  better  suits  the 
case  of  those  who  were  taught  than  that  of  the  teachers,  and  of 
those  that  were  resident  there  than  of  those  that  travelled  with 
the  apostle.  "  When  they  had  seen  the  brethren,  they  com- 
forted them,  and  departed."  These  brethren,  it  appears,  were 
left  behind;  and  of  course,  it  is  in  no  wise  probable  that  they 
were  any  of  Paul's  companions ;  but  there  is  every  reason  to 
believe  that  they  were  the  members  of  Lydia's  household. 
And  their  being  called  brethren,  shows  that  they  were  converts 
who  were  baptized  on  their  own  faith.  At  any  rate,  it  is  quite 
as  probable  that  these  brethren  composed  her  household,  as  that 
it  was  composed  of  infants  or  unadult  children.  So  that  the 
argument,  even  horn  probability,  to  make  the  best  of  it,  is  lost, 

If  it  be  still  alleged,  that  in  most  families  there  are  infant 
children,  and  that  consequently  it  is  most  probable  there  were  in 
this,  it  may  be  replied,  that  many  families  contain  no  such  chil- 
dren, and  that  most  families,  under  similar  circumstances,  do  not 
contain  any.  And  this,  with  the  additional  mention  of  the 
brethren  that  were  in  her  house  after  the  baptism,  renders  it  de- 
cidedly the  most  probable  that  she  had  no  infant  children  in  her 
family  on  this  occasion.  Therefore  the  greatest  probability  is 
still  on  the  side  of  believers'  baptism  merely,  even  from  this 
very  instance,  which  is  unquestionably  the  most  favourable  of 
the  three  to  the  cause  of  infant  baptism. 

This  greater  probability  in  favour  of  their  all  being  believ- 
ers is  not  materially  lessened  by  the  manner  in  which  the  bap- 


(30  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

tism  of  the  household  is  related.  To  give  the  argument  from 
hence  any  weight,  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  must  be  pre- 
supposed* From  the  known  practice  of  Pedobaptists,  we 
should,  indeed,  conclude  from  such  a  mode  of  expression,  that 
the  household  contained  infants  that  were  baptized  upon  her 
account.  But  we  should  not  conclude  any  such  thing  from  the 
known  practice  of  anti-Pedobaptists.  All  that  would  be  infer- 
red in  that  case  would  be,  that  the  whole  family  believed  as  well 
as  she,  and  were  baptized  on  their  own  faith.  There  is  evident- 
ly nothing  in  this  record,  allowing  the  apostles  to  have  practised 
believers'  baptism  only,  which  is  inconsistent  with  that  practice, 
or  which  conveys  a  different  idea.  The  only  force  of  the  argu- 
ment lies  in  presupposing  that  the  apostles  practised  infant  bap- 
tism, which  is  the  very  thing  to  be  proved. 

Nor  is  there  any  thing  to  lessen  the  probability  in  favour  of 
this  being  a  family  of  believers,  in  the  words,  u  If  ye  have 
judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house  and 
abide  there,"  without  any  express  mention  of  the  faith  of  the 
household  :  because  she  spoke  as  the  head  of  the  family,  whose 
business  it  was  to  give  the  invitation.  There  was  no  necessity 
for  mentioning  the  faith  of  her  household  in  this  place.  The 
mode  of  expression  is  perfectly  consistent  either  with  the  idea 
that  she  had  no  infant  children,  or  that  she  had.  It  is  no  proof 
either/or  or  against  the  piety  of  the  household.  But  the  sub- 
sequent account  of  there  being  brethren  in  her  house,  as  I  have 
shown,  is  a  plain  intimation  that  her  household  were  believers. 
On  the  whole,  therefore,  there  is  nothing  gained  in  favour  of 
the  Pedobaptist  cause  on  the  ground  of  probability. 

But  even  if  there  was  as  great  a  probability  as  the  Pedobap- 
tists suppose,  that  there  were  infants  in  this  family  ;  yea,  if  it 
were  certain  that  there  were  ;  this  would  not  be  satisfactory 
proof  that  they  were  baptized  on  her  account.  We  might  meet 
the  Pedobaptists  on  their  own  ground,  and  say  the  record  re- 
spects merely  the  adult  part  ot  the  family,  as  the  Lord  had  . 
given  no  order  for  the  baptism  of  any  but  adults.  They  gene- 
rally say  that  the  words  of  Christ  in  Mark,  "  He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall 
be  damned ;"  relate  merely  to  adults,  and  do  not  touch  the 
case  of  infants ;  that  the  very  argument  from  these  words  which 
would  exclude  them  from  baptism,  would  exclude  them  also 
from  salvation.  Although  I  do  not  admit  the  justness  of  this 
statement,  yet  they  cannot  complain,  if  we  dispose  of  the  other 
case  in  the  same  way  that  they  do  of  this.  Certainly  it  might 
be  argued  with  as  much  propriety,  and  more,  that  the  mention 
of  the  baptism  of  the  household  only  related  to  the  adult  part 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  61 

and  not  to  those  who  were  too  young  to  be  instructed  and  to 
profess  faith.  Seeing  the  commission  to  baptize  expressly 
mentions  none  but  believers,  it  might  be  plead  that  the  mention 
of  the  baptism  of  a  household  means,  of  course,  the  adult  part, 
and  no  more.  Therefore,  the  fact  that  there  were  infants  in 
her  family,  if  ever  so  probable,  and  even  if  proved,  would  not 
prove  infant  baptism. 

And  further  ;  if  it  were  as  probable  as  Pedobaptists  suppose, 
that  there  were  infants  in  this  household  who  were  baptized 
on  Lydia's  faith,  this  would  not  settle  the  point ;  because  this  is 
not  the  kind  of  proof  required,  especially  in  the  case  of  a  posi- 
tive institution.  To  base  such  an  institution  upon  mere  proba- 
bility, would  open  a  field  for  inference  and  conjecture  quite  too 
wide,  and  it  would  be  a  gross  reflection  upon  the  wisdom,  ac- 
curacy, and  faithfulness  of  the  New  Testament  lawgiver.  What 
if  this  probability,  as  some  allege,  were  as  three  to  one  in  favour 
of  the  Pedobaptist  view  ;  so  long  as  it  is  mere  probability,  in  a 
case  where  an  explicit  warrant  is  required  ;  and  so  long  as  it  is 
admitted  by  these  persons  that  the  probability  on  the  side  of 
there  being  none  but  adults  who  acted  for  themselves  is  as  one 
to  three,  i.  e.  one  third  as  probable  as  the  other,  there  is  evi- 
dently no  warrant  to  consider  this  as  an  example  of  infant  bap- 
tism. If  it  be  allowed  that  one  family  in  three  have  no  infant 
children  ;  yea,  if  the  proportion  were  stated  to  be  still  less ;  it 
will  clearly  follow,  that  this  household  might  have  been  of  that 
description.  And  so  the  point  is  not  proved  that  here  were 
infants  baptized  on  Lydia's  account.  And  when  it  is  considered 
that  mere  probability  would  not  afford  adequate  proof,  even  if 
it  were  ever  so  great,  it  is  palpably  unjust  to  consider  this  as 
an  example  of  infant  baptism.  I  have  even  shown  that  the 
argument,  from  probability  itself,  is  in  favour  of  the  baptism  of 
believers  only,  from  this  very  instance. 

Moreover,  it  should  be  particularly  observed  that  it  does  not 
belong  to  me  to  prove  that  there  were  no  infants  in  this  family ; 
or,  if  there  were,  that  they  were  not  baptized  upon  Lydia's  ac- 
count ;  but  to  the  Pedobaptists  to  prove  that  there  were  infants 
in  it,  and  that  they  received  baptism  on  her  account;  neither ' 
of  which  is  capable  of  being  done.  And  if,  after  all,  it  should 
be  said  that  as  Pedobaptists  cannot  prove  that  there  were  infants 
in  it,  so  neither  can  I  prove  that  there  were  not,  then  I  would 
say,  that  in  that  case,  the  passage  is  no  proof  either  for  or  against 
the  point  in  debate  ;  and  so  it  is  left  just  where  the  apostolick 
commission  and  history  leave  it,  as  I  have  already  shown,  in 
favour  of  a  warrant  merely  for  the  baptism  of  believers. 

The  next  instance  of  the  baptism  of  a  household  which  I 

6 


62  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

am  to  consider,  is  that  of  the  jailer,  recorded  in  this  same  chap- 
ter, verses  31 — 34,  "  And  they  said,  believe  on  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house.  And  they 
spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in 
his  house.  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and 
washed  their  stripes  ;  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straight- 
way. And  when  he  bad  brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set 
meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with  all  his 
house." 

Here,  again,  to  make  out  an  example  of  infant,  or  household 
baptism,  in  the  sense  contended  for,  it  must  be  shown  that  there 
were  infants  in  this  family,  and  that  they  were  baptized  on  the 
jailer's  account  But  is  there  any  such  thing  asserted  or  fairly 
implied  ?     Evidently  not,  but  the  contrary. 

It  is  plainly  asserted  that  "  they  spake  unto  him  the  word  of 
the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house,"  which  shows  that 
there  were  none  in  the  family  but  what  were  capable  of  being 
taught.  It  is  also  said  that  "  he  rejoiced,  believing  in  God, 
with  all  his  house,"  which  is  positive  proof  that  the  whole  fami- 
ly believed,  and  were  converted  to  Christ.  For  if  we  connect 
the  clause — "  with  all  his  house,"  either  with  the  word  "  re- 
joiced," or  with  the  word  "  believing,"  it  denotes  a  similaiity 
of  character  in  the  jailer  and  his  family,  produced  by  means  of 
the  gospel.  If  we  connect  it  with  the  latter  word,  then  it  is 
affirmed  that  the  whole  house  believed  as  well  as  himself.  And 
if  we  counect  it  with  the  former,  then  it  will  follow  that  the 
whole  house  rejoiced  as  well  as  he,  i.  e.  participated  in  the  same 
joy  of  faith  and  pardon  of  sin,  which  comes  to  the  same  thing. 

I  admit  that  both  the  words  u  rejoiced,"  and  "  believing," 
are  in  the  singular  number  in  the  original  Greek  ;  and  they  are 
likewise  evidently  so  in  our  language.  But  what  of  that  ? 
Does  it  hence  follow  that  he  was  the  only  one  of  the  family 
that  "  believed  and  rejoiced,''  or  "  rejoiced  and  believed  ?" 
Not  at  all.  The  clause,  "  with  all  his  house,"  connected  with 
either  of  these  terms,  shows  that  the  family  were  all  brought  in- 
to the  same  state  with  himself,  and  were  baptized  on  the  same 
ground  of  personal  faith. 

The  Greek  word,  u  panoiki,"  is  correctly  translated,  "  with 
all  his  house."  To  render  it,  as  some  are  inclined  to  do,  u  do- 
mestically," or  "  in,"  or  "  through  the  whole  house,"  is  to  de- 
stroy all  its  beauty  and  force.  What  is  it  to  rejoice,  or  believe 
"  domestically,"  or  u  in,"  or  "  through  the  whole  house  ?" 
Does  it  mean  that  he  went  through  every  apartment  rejoicing, 
or  believing,  first  through  the  lower  rooms,  then  through  the 
chambers,  and  then  through  the   cellar  ?     Is  this  all  that  the 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  63 

passage  imports  ?  It  is  dishonourable  to  the  spirit  of  inspiration 
to  allow  it ;  especially  as  this  rendering  is  not  only  trivial  and 
absurd,  but  it  confines  the  rejoicing,  or  believing,  wholly  to  ihe 
jailer  himself;  and  heuce  the  passage  makes  no  mention  what- 
ever of  the  effect  produced  on  his  family — it  gives  not  the  least 
intimation  that  they  were  partakers,  either  of  his  faith  or  of  his 
joy,  And  yet  it  cannot  be  reasonably  supposed  but  that  some 
good  effect  was  produced  on  the  family  by  such  a  miracle,  and 
by  so  remarkable  an  escape  from  suicide,  and  by  such  plain  and 
pungent  preaching,  accompanied  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  and  it  would  have  been  natural  to  record  this  effect. 
Yea,  it  is  manifest  that  the  inspired  historian  intended  to 
record  it ;  and  the  record  is  contained  in  the  clause  in  ques- 
tion. There  is  nothing  else  which  mentions  it.  But  the  above 
translation  confines  the  import  of  it  to  the  jailer  himself  and 
to  the  building  which  he  occupied,  and  therefore  nothing  can 
be  learnt  therefrom  as  to  the  effect  produced  on  his  family.  It 
is  evident,  therefore,  that  this  translation  cannot  be  correct. 
But,  panoiki  being  a  contraction  of  two  words,  one  of  which  sig- 
nifies all,  and  the  other  the  house,  or  family ,  is  rightly  rendered, 
"  with  all  h*.s  house,"  whereby  the  effect  produced  on  his  fami- 
ly is  related  as  well  as  on  himself. 

Besides,  it  is  palpably  inconsistent  to  speak  of  this  as  a  re- 
markable instance  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  which  is 
supposed  to  be  contained  in  the  Abrahamick  covenant  re- 
specting children  ;  and  yet  confine  the  sense  of  the  above  term, 
as  in  the  rendering  which  I  am  opposing,  and  consequently,  the 
effect  produced,  to  the  jailer  himself. 

If  we  admit,  as  we  evidently  must,  that  the  clause  in  question 
is  the  true  rendering  of  the  Greek  term,  "  panniki,"  and  that 
it  is  a  brief  recital  of  the  effect  produced  on  the  jailer's  family, 
then1  is  nothing  gained  to  the  cause  of  infant  baptism  by  con- 
necting it  with  the  word  "  rejoiced,"  and  not  with  that  of  u  be- 
lieving." It  will  still  be  manifest  that  the  whole  family  were 
converted.  In  that  case,  it  will  read,  that  '  believing,  or  hav- 
ing believed,  in  God,  he  rejoiced  with  all  his  house;"  which 
plainly  imports  that  they  believed  and  rejoiced  too,  or  at  least, 
that  they  were  partakers  of  the  same  joy  which  he  experienced7, 
that  resulted  from  faith  and  a  view  of  the  pardoning  mercy  of 
God  ;  and  that  they  must  have  accepted  the  offer  of  salvation 
as  well  as  he.  There  is  no  intimation  that  he  was  filled  with 
one  kind  of  joy  and  they  with  another.  Surely  the  cause  must 
labour  hard  which  requires  the  making  of  such  a  distinctian. 

Especially  is  it  manifest  that  the  family  participated  with  him 
in  the  joy  of  faith,  when  he  had  been  expressly  told  that  they 


64  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

should  be  saved  on  the  same  condition  which  was  proposed  to 
him,  viz.  faith  in  Christ,  and  when  all  the  family  had  been  in- 
structed with  a  view  to  their  personal  salvation,  and  had  all  been 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

It  is  clear  from  these  facts  that  the  clause  before  us  is  intend- 
ed to  describe  the  effect  produced  on  the  whole  family,  as  well 
as  on  himself;  and  it  was  the  same  effect.  And  whether  we 
connect  it  as  before  observed  with  the  word  believing,  or  with 
the  word  rejoiced,  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  to  a  full  and 
positive  declaration  that  the  whole  family  believed  on  Jesus. 
And  that  being  the  fact,  they  were  undoubtedly  baptized  upon 
their  own  faith,  and  not  upon  his. 

Further:  The  phrases,  "  all  his  house,"  and  "  all  his,"  in- 
clude his  wife,  provided  he  had  one,  together  with  his  domes- 
ticks  and  attendants  generally,  as  well  as  his  children.  And 
there  is  manifestly  as  much  evidence  that  he  had  a  wife  as  that 
he  had  children.  Consequently,  there  is  precisely  the  same 
evidence  that  she  was  baptized  upon  his  account  as  that  they 
were.  If  the  household  were  baptized  upon  his  faith,  the  in- 
ference is  unavoidable  that  his  wife  stood  upon  the  same  foot- 
ing with  the  children  and  the  servants,  for  she  belonged  to  the 
household  ;  and  so  it  is  as  much  the  duty  of  every  man  to  offer 
his  wife  in  baptism,  as  his  children.  He  is  bound,  also,  to  offer 
up  all  his  servants,  though  they  should  equal  the  number  that 
belonged  to  Abraham.  There  is  no  stopping  short  of  these 
consequences,  provided  the  argument  for  household  baptism, 
from  this  instance,  be  allowed  to  have  any  force.  The  extent, 
therefore,  to  which  it  will  carry  us,  shows  of  itself  that  it  is  un- 
sound. 

Again  :  If,  as  some  pretend,  there  is  a  promise  in  this  passage, 
that  if  the  jailer  would  believe,  his  household  should  believe 
and  be  saved  also,  and  if  what  transpired,  (allowing  the  family 
to  have  been  converted,)  was  a  remarkable  fulfilment  of  this 
gracious  promise  to  the  believing  parent,  it  should  be  observed 
that  it  included  his  wife  and  servants  as  well  as  his  children. 
So  that  the  promise  in  the  Abrahamick  covenant,  which  is  supr* 
posed  to  be  referred  to  by  the  apostle,  secures  the  piety  and  sal- 
vation of  a  man's  wife  and  servants  as  well  as  his  children, upon 
his  account,  or  as  a  consequence  of  his  faith  and  keeping  cove- 
nant with  God.  But  this  is  carrying  the  blessing  further  than 
any  one  pretends — further  than  any  one  can  bring  a  shadow  of 
proof,  from  the  word  of  God,  to  support  the  sentiment.  Yet 
the  consequence  is  unavoidable.  To  restrict  the  promise  of 
salvation  to  the  children  for  the  father's  sake,  when  the  wife 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  65 

and  servants  belong  as  much  to  the  family  as  the  children,  is 
obviously  unfair 

But,  in  truth,  when  Paul  and  Silas  said,  "  believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house," 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  they  meant  that  the  taith  and  sal- 
vation of  the  family  would  certainly  accompany  his  own  faith, 
or  faithfulness.  But  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  is,  that  if 
he  would  believe  on  Christ,  he  should  himself  be  saved ;  and 
if  they  would  believe,  they  also  should  be  saved,  or  that  he 
should  be  saved  on  the  condition  stated,  and  that  they  should 
be  saved  on  the  same  condition.  As  the  angel  told  Cornelius, 
when  directing  him  to  send  for  Peter,  that  "  he  should  tell  him 
words  whereby  he  and  his  house  should  be  saved,"  so  Paul  and 
Silas  told  the  jailer  words  whereby  he  and  his  house  should  be 
saved,  provided  they  would  heartily  receive  and  confide  in  them. 
And  this  is  all  that  the  aforesaid  promise  imports.  This  must 
he  plain  to  every  candid  observer.  The  family  did  accordingly 
believe  for  themselves,  and  were  saved,  as  the  word  clearly  as- 
serts. 

That  this  was  a  family  of  converts  who  were  baptized  upon 
their  own  personal  faith  and  profession,  will  be  made  still  fur- 
ther evident  by  comparing  the  phrases,  "  and  to  all  that  were  in 
his  house  ;"  "  he  and  all  his  ;"  and,  "  believing  in  God  with  all 
his  house  ;"  with  several  other  similar  phrases,  used  elsewhere, 
which  evidently  mean  that  the  whole  family  spoken  of  believ- 
ed. It  is  said,  John,  v.  53,  of  the  nobleman  whose  son  was 
cured  by  our  Lord?s  simply  saying  at  a  distance  from  his  house, 
"  thy  son  liveth,"  that "  himself  believed,  and  his  whole  house.'' 
Again  ;  it  is  said,  Acts,  x.  2,  of  Cornelius,  that  he  was  u  one  that 
feared  God  with  all  his  house."  And  again  ;  it  is  said,  Acts,  xviii. 
8,  in  the  account  given  of  Paul's  success  in  preaching  at  Co- 
rinth, that  M  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  believed 
on  the  Lord  with  all  his  house  ;  and  many  of  the  Corinthians 
hearing,  believed  and  were  baptized."  Now,  will  any  dispute 
that,  in  each  of  these  instances,  the  whole  family  believed  and 
praised  God  ?  How  could  the  fact  have  been  more  clearly  as- 
serted ?  And  in  the  last  of  the  three  it  is  not  only  clear  that 
the  whole  family  of  Crispus  believed,  but  that  they  were  bap- 
tized upon  a  personal  profession,  being  included  in  the  "  many  of 
the  Corinthians"  that  "  hearing,  believed  and  were  baptized." 
It  is  presumed  no  one  will  question  that  this  family  was  baptized 
upon  their  own  account.  It  has  never,  I  believe,  been  brought 
as  an  instance  of  household  baptism  in  the  Pedobaptist  sense. 

If,  therefore,  it  be  received  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  these 
whole  families  believed,  because  the  record  plainly  declares  it, 

6*  , 


lib  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

why  should  it  be  called  in  question  that  the  jailer's  whole  fam- 
ily believed,  when  the  fact  is,as  plainly  asserted  as  in  either  of 
the  other  cases?  yea,  asserted  in  the  very  same  terms?  It  is 
said  of  Crispus,  that  he  believed  in  the  Lord  with  all  his  house; 
and  of  the  jailer,  that  he  "  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all 
his  house."  The  phraseology  in  both  cases  is  the  very  same. 
The  fact,  then,  of  the  conversion  of  the  whole  family,  is  as  pos- 
itively asserted  in  the  latter  case  as  in  the  former.  If  the  words 
used,  with  regard  to  the  jailer's  family,  do  not  imply  that  the 
whole  of  them  believed,  the  same  words  used  with  regard  to 
the  family  of  Crispus,  do  not  imply  that  the  whole  of  them  be- 
lieved. And  if  not,  what  other  terms  would  have  conveyed  to 
us  the  knowledge  of  the  fact,  provided  it  had  been  real  ?  Sure- 
ly, no  other  terms  could  have  been  more  explicit  and  positive. 
So  that  if  we  may  take  the  liberty  to  contradict  such  testimo- 
ny as  this,  we  might  contradict,  or  evade,  any  other  whatever. 
Upon  this  principle,  there  is  no  language  but  what  may  be  con- 
strued, explained  away,  and  evaded,  to  suit  the  fancies  of  men. 
O,  the  amazing  influence  of  tradition  and  prejudice,  when  so 
artless,  so  explicit^  and  so  unequivocal  a  record  of  the  conver- 
sion of  a  whole  family,  in  the  same  memorable  night,  and  of 
their  consequent  baptism,  upon  their  own  personal  faith, 
can  be  so  twisted,  shaped,  and  turned,  as  to  be  viewed 
as  an  apostolick  example  of  infant  baptism  !  How  is  it 
that  men  of  apparent  candour,  knowledge,  and  piety,  can 
be  so  attached  to  a  preconceived  opinion,  as  to  overlook  this 
plain  and  demonstrative  evidence  of  the  conversion  of  this 
entire  family,  and  of  their  baptism  on  their  own  faith,  and  still 
produce  this  as  an  apostolick  example  of  the  baptism  of  infants 
upon  the  faith  of  their  parent,  or  head.  It  is  truly  surprising 
to  see  so  many,  in  the  face  of  all  this  light,  still  disposed  to  say 
that  the  jailer  was  the  only  one  that  believed,  and  that  his  fam- 
ily were  baptized  upon  his  faith! 

But  leaving  them  to  answer  to  their  own  Master,  I  feel  au- 
thorized and  constrained  tasay  that  this  instance  does  not  afford 
the  least  countenance  to  the  practice  of  baptizing  infants.  It  is 
a  plain  recital  of  the  triumph  of  divine  grace  in  rescuing  a  poor 
sinner  from  the  very  jaws  of  destruction,  and  in  bringing  him 
and  his  whole  family,  in  one  blessed  night,  to  embrace  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  by  faith,  and  joyfully  to  enter  his  gospel  kingdom 
by  baptism.  And  every  man  can  see  this  for  himself.  Nor 
was  it  an  unusual  thing  in  that  remarkable  age,  for  whole  fami- 
lies to  repent  and  believe  the  gospel  together,  as  the  instances 
above  cited  will  conclusively  show. 

If,  therefore,  after  all  which  has  been  said,  any  will  yet  insist 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  67 

that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  jailer's  whole  family  believed 
and  were  baptized  on  a  personal  profession  of  faith ;  but  that 
the  family  were  baptized  on  his  account,  we  may  well  despair 
of  giving  them  conviction. 

The  third  and  only  remaining  instance  of  the  baptism  of  a 
household,  which  is  on  the  records  of  the  New  Testament,  is 
contained  in  I.  Cor.  i.  16  :  "  And  I  baptized  also  the  household 
of  Stephanas." 

The  same  course  requisite  to  make  out  an  example  of  infant 
baptism  in  either  of  the  other  cases,  is  requisite  also  in  this  ; 
otherwise  it  gives  no  support  to  the  practice.  But  here,  also> 
it  cannot  be  proved  that  there  were  infants  in  the  household,  and 
that  they  were  baptized  on  the  faith  of  Stephanas.  Even  if 
there  were  infants  in  it,  by  taking  Pedobaptist  ground  in  anoth- 
er case,  as  already  stated,  I  might  fairly  dispose  of  the  argument 
for  their  baptism. 

But  there  is  no  necessity  for  resorting  to  any  such  method  ; 
for  the  inspired  apostle  has  given  us  the  character  of  this  fami- 
ly as  a  family  of  believers  in  this  very  epistle,  chap.  xvi.  15.  M  I 
beseech  you,  brethren,  ye  know  the  house  of  Stephanas,  that  it 
is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  addicted  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  of  the  saints."  This  is  so  plain  a  decla- 
ration that  the  household  were  all  believers,  that  Doctor  Guise, 
a  strong  Pedobaptist,  in  his  paraphrase  on  the  New  Testament, 
consents  to  take  it  from  the  list  of  examples  of  infant  baptism, 
and  admits  that  this  family  "  were  all  adult  believers,  and  so 
were  baptized  upon  their  own  personal  profession  of  faith  in 
Christ."* 

The  Doctor  undoubtedly  states  the  fact  as  it  is.  For  al- 
though the  baptism  of  this  family  is  recorded  in  the  first  place 
without  making  any  particular  mention  either  of  their  faith,  or 
of  Stephanas'  own  ;  yet  their  character  is  carefully  given  after- 
wards. They  were  the  first  fruits,  or  converts,  of  Achaia. 
There  is  no  doubt  then,  that  they  were  baptized  on  their  own 
faith.  There  is  not  the  least  intimation  that  Stephanas  first  be- 
came a  convert,  and  had  his  family  baptized  upon  his  account, 
and  that,  some  time  afterward,  they  were  converted,  but  the  con- 
trary. The  date  of  their  conversion  was  the  same  as  his  :  they 
became  first  fruits  in  the  same  sense  that  he  did.  The  scrip- 
tures no  where  speak  of  two  kinds  of  first  fruits.  The  apostle 
could  not  have  used  more  appropriate  language  to  denote  the 
conversion  of  the  whole  family,  than  that  they  were  the  first 
fruits,  or  the  first  disciples,  made  in  that  region,  and  that  thev 
had  given  evidence  of  their  sincerity  by  ministering  to  the- 
saints. 


68  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

The$e9then,  are  the  only  instances  recorded  in  the  scriptures  of 
the  baptism  of  a  whole  household ;  and  the  proof  is  full  and  clear 
in  the  two  last,  at  least,  that  they  were  families  of  believers  ; 
and  in  the  remaining  instance,  viz.  that  of  Lydia's  household, 
the  proof  falls  very  little  short,  if  any,  of  being  positive.  To 
say  the  least,  there  is  decidedly  the  greatest  probability,  from 
the  record  itself,  leaving  out  all  other  considerations,  in  favour  of 
their  all  being  believers.  So  that  although  it  does  not  belong 
to  me  to  prove  that  there  were  not  infants  in  thee  families,  but 
that  they  consisted  wholly  of  adult  believers,  but  to  the  Pedo- 
baptists  to  prove  that  there  were  infants  in  them,  and  that  they 
were  baptized  on  the  faith  of  their  respective  heads;  yet  I  am 
able  to  furnish  such  proof,  clearly  and  decidedly  in  two  cases  out 
of  the  three,  and  in  the  third  it  is  nearly,  if  not  quite,  positive. 
At  any  rate,  the  greatest  probability  is  in  favour  of  this  being 
a  family  of  believers.  So  that  it  utterly  fails  of  being  an  ex- 
ample of  infant  baptism. 

Even  if  I  were  not  able  to  prove  that  there  were  no  infants 
in  these  families,  so  long  as  the  Pedobaptists  cannot  prove  that 
there  were,  they  are  of  no  advantage  to  their  cause.  In  that 
case,  they  furnish  no  proof  either  for  or  against  infant  baptism. 
And  hence  the  matter  is  left  just  where  the  commission  and  all 
the  other  recorded  examples  leave  it,  altogether  in  favour  of  be- 
lievers' baptism,  and  that  only. 

I  have  now,  thereforevevinced  the  assertion  that  the  apostles 
practised  the  baptism  of  infants  to  be  utterly  unfounded.  The 
three  instances  above  examined  furnish  no  evidence  of  any 
such  thing.  And  there  are  no  other  ;  nor  is  there  any  thing  else 
which  furnishes  this  evidence,  as  I  shall  still  more  fully  make 
to  appear.  The  scriptures  evidently  guard  against  any  infer- 
ence being  drawn  from  the  facts  and  circumstances  related,  in 
favour  of  this  practice. 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM.  60 


CHAPTER  IX. 

The  right  of  believers  only  to  baptism  confirmed  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Apostolick  Churches, 

It  is  abundantly  evident  that  the  churches  formed  by  the 
Apostles  were  societies  of  believers —select  companies  called  out 
of  the  world  by  means  of  the  gospel,  through  the  accompanying 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  professing  gospel  obedience, 
Hence  the  notion  of  infant-membership  in  the  New  Testament 
church,  is  without  foundation.  The  constitution  of  the  primi- 
tive churches  forbids  the  idea  of  infants  being  horn  in  the  churchy 
or  of  their  being  admitted  into  it  by  baptism  upon  the  faith  of 
their  parents.  This  would  make  them,  at  once,  to  consist  of 
professed  disciples  and  acknowledged  unbelievers  ;  whereas  the 
scriptures  represent  them  as  a  household  of  faith — select  compa- 
nies of  Christians,  or  brethren  in  Christ, 

I  have  already  shown  that  our  Lord  collected  and  baptized  a 
company  of  disciples  during  his  life,  which  was  the  origin  of 
the  New  Testament  church. 

There  was  a  company  of  disciples,  at  least  an  hundred  and 
twenty,  convened  together  at  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  pente- 
cost,  to  whom  the  three  thousand  were  added  on  that  day  :  and 
these  three  thousand  were  such  as  were  awakened  under 
Peter's  sermon,  and  u  gladly  received  his  word."  They  were 
converts,  as  all  will  allow ;  such  as  appeared  and  professed  to 
be  cordial  believers  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  And  those  which 
were  daily  added  to  the  church  were  "  such  as  should  be  sa- 
ved," or  the  saved,  as  the  phrase  might  have  been  rendered,  de- 
noting that  they  were  renewed  persons,  or  at  least,  were  so  con- 
sidered. And  there  is  no  mention  of  any  other  than  believers 
being  added. 

And  thus  things  went  on.  We  soon  read  that  "  many  of 
them  which  heard  the  word  believed,  and  the  number  of  the 
men  was  about  five  thousand."  Then  we  read  of  the  "  multi- 
tude of  them  that  believed,  who  were  of  one  heart  and  of  one 
soul."  Then  again,  that  "  believers  were  the  more  added  to 
the  Lord,  multitudes  both  of  men  and  women."    But  no  mea~ 


70  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

tion  is  made,  in  all  these  accounts,  of  any  infants  being  added 
by  baptism  on  their  parents'  account. 

The  history  continues  the  same  through  the  whole  book  of 
Acts.  The  Samaritan  church  consisted  of  those  "  who  believ- 
ed Philip  preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  who  **  were  baptized,  both 
men  and  women."  The  first  Gentile  church  which  was  form- 
ed by  Peter  at  Cesarea,  consisting  of  Cornelius  and  his  house- 
hold and  friends,  were  such  as  "  received  the  Holy  Ghost," 
"  spake  with  tongues,  and  magnified  God."  The  church  at 
Antioch,  which  was  at  first  composed  of  Grecians,  or  Hellenist 
Jews,  i.  e.  of  Jews  who  spoke  the  Greek  language,  consisted 
of  such  as  "  believed  and  turned  unto  the  Lord."  They  were 
such  as  were  cC  added  unto  the  Lord" — w  disciples  who  were 
called  Christians  first  in  that  place."  So  the  word  of  God  ex- 
pressly describes  them.  And  there  is  no  difference  in  the  sub- 
sequent accounts  of  the  formation  of  churches.  There  is  not 
the  least  hint  given  of  any  being  received  but  those  who  were 
reputed  believers. 

And,  in  the  epistles  which  were  afterwards  written  to  partic- 
ular churches,  and  some  to  the  church  at  large,  the  same  cha- 
racter is  given  of  the  members.  They  are  described  and  ad- 
dressed as  societies  of  believers,  or  renewed  persons.  For  ex- 
ample, the  inscription  to  the  church  of  Rome  is  in  these  words  : 
"  To  all  that  be  in  Rome,  beloved  of  God,  called  to  be  saints." 
To  the  church  at  Corinth  it  is  this :  "  Unto  the  church  of  God 
which  is  at  Corinth,  to  them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus, 
called  to  be  saints,  with  all  that  in  every  place  call  upon  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  both  theirs  and  ours."  To  the 
Ephesians  he  writes  thus  :  "  To  the  saints  which  are  at  Ephe- 
sus,  and  the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus."  And  to  the  Philippians 
thus :  u  To  all  the  saints  which  are  at  Philippi :  I  thank  my 
God  upon  every  remembrance  of  you — for  your  fellowship  in 
the  gospel  from  the  first  day  until  now — being  confident  of  this 
very  thing  that  he  which  hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you  will 
perform  it  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ."  St.  Peter  inscribes 
his  first  Epistle  "  to  the  strangers  scattered  throughout  Pontus, 
Galatia,  Capadocia,  Asia,  and  Bythinia,  elect,  according  to  the 
fore-knowledge  of  God  the  Father,  through  sauctification  of 
the  Spirit,  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ." 

These  inscriptions  afford  a  correct  sample  of  the  manner  in 
which  all  the  primitive  churches  were  addressed.  They  were  ex- 
pressly written  to,  and  described  as  Christian  societies,  not  in  the 
modern  lax  sense  of  the  phrase,  but  in  a  peculiar  and  restricted 
sense,  as  societies  of  persons  professing  to  be  the  children  and 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  71 

followers  of  Christ.  They  were  considered  as  communities  of 
renewed  persons,  or  such  as  professed  to  be  renewed,  and  to  be 
subject  to  Christ.  Hence  apostates  were  described  as  "  false 
brethren,  crept  in  unawares  ;"  or  as  persons  who  had  fallen  from 
their  Christian  profession,  and  were  thereby  manifested  not 
to  be  of  the  company  of  the  faithful,  as  they  once  appeared  to 
be. 

There  is  not  the  least  intimation  of  there  having  been  ano- 
ther sort  of  members,  viz.  unconverted  children  and  infants, 
who  were  admitted  and  baptized  on  their  parents'  account. 

The  members  of  which  these  churches  were  composed,  were 
full  and  complete  members  ;  and  if  any  did  not  adorn  their  pro- 
fession, and  could  not  be  reclaimed,  they  were  to  be  cast  out  of 
the  society  of  the  faithful,  as  directed  by  Christ  in  the  xviii. 
chapter  of  Matthew. 

It  does  not  appear  from  any  of  these  accounts,  that  the  New 
Testament  church  was  considered  as  a  school,  or  nursery,  for 
the  unconverted  children  of  believers ;  but  merely  as  a  fold  for 
the  sheep  of  Christ. 

Children  were,  indeed,  to  be  instructed,  but  not  in  the  churchy 
till  they  became  believers. 

It  is  true  the  Apostles,  in  their  epistles,  addressed  both  pa- 
rents and  children,  (whence  the  duty  of  all  parents  and  chil- 
dren may  be  inferred,)  but  they  addressed  them  as  believers 
and  as  brethren  and  sisters  in  the  Lord.  There  were  believing 
parents  and  believing  children  in  these  chuiches,  and  their 
being  connected  in  this  manner  did  not  annihilate  their  natural 
relations  and  duties. 

Indeed,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  in  some  cases,  these  ad- 
dresses to  parents  and  children  include  others  besides  belie- 
vers, no  serious  difficulty  would  be  created  ;  for  the  main  drift 
of  these  epistles  would  show  that  these  churches  were  compo- 
sed of  none  but  reputed  saints. 

If  the  apostles,  after  addressing  adult  believers,  or  the  pro- 
fessing part  of  the  churches,  had  addressed  their  children  as 
baptised,  and  as  a  distinct  portion  of  them,  and  urged  upon 
them  their  baptismal  obligations,  as  Pedobaptists  are  wont  to 
do,  it  would  have  given  some  support  to  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism.  But  there  is  nothing  of  this  ;  no,  not  even  insomuch 
as  one  of  the  epistles. 

Now,  if  it  had  been  the  constant  practice  of  the  apostles  to 
baptize  children  and  consider  them  members  of  the  church,  is 
it  not  wholly  unaccountable,  that  not  one  appropriate  address  is 
made  to  them,  as  such. 


72  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Not  only  is  there  no  address  made  in  their  epistles  to  the 
children  of  believers  as  members  of  the  church,  or  as  being 
within  the  pale  of  the  church  ;  but  there  is  none  made  to  them 
as  children  in  covenant  with  their  parents  though  not  church 
members,  or  as  those  to  whom  the  covenant  had  a  particular  re- 
spect Their  baptismal  obligations  are  never  urged  on  this 
ground.  Had  they  been,  it  would  have  been  an  argument  for 
their  baptism.  But  nothing  of  this  do  we  find.  No  such  bap- 
tismal obligations  are  urged.  The  only  obligations,  founded  on 
baptism,  that  are  ever  described  and  enforced,  are  those  which 
pertained  to  adults — to  those  who  had  "  put  on  Christ,"  or  pro- 
fessed the  Christian  faith. 

There  is,  therefore,  nothing  in  the  constitution  of  the  apos- 
tolick  churches  which  favours  the  baptism  of  infants;  but  eve- 
ry thing  to  the  contrary.  The  membership  of  infants,  as  such, 
was  not  known  in  these  churches ;  nor  was  there  such  a  thing 
kuown  as  children  being  in  covenant  with  their  believing  pa- 
rents, except  they  were  believers  themselves.  Infant  baptism 
being  never  based  on  either  of  these  grounds;  and  there  being 
no  hint  given  of  any  such  thing  being  practised  at  all,  and  no 
distinct  addresses  being  made  to  unconverted  children  as  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  or  as  children  in  covenant,  in  all  the  epis- 
tles and  records  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  evident  that  the 
practice  did  not  exist. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  73 


CHAPTER  X. 

Containing  an  examination  of  Mark,  x.  13 — 16,  Romans*  xi. 
16,  17,  and  L  Corinthians ,  vii.  14. 

Mr  object  in  this  chapter,  is  to  show  that  the  principal  select 
passages  which  are  adduced  in  support  of  infant  baptism,  do 
not,  when  fairly  construed,  give  it  any  countenance,  but  are 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  view  which  has  been  given  of  the 
apostolick  commission  and  practice,  and  of  the  constitution  of 
the  primitive  churches. 

I  will  first  examine  Mark,  x.  13 — 16.  M  And  they  brought 
young  children  unto  him,  that  he  should  touch  them  ;  and  his 
disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought  them.  But  when  Jesus 
saw  it,  he  was  much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them,  suffer  the 
little  children  to  come  unto  me,  aud  forbid  them  not :  for  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoe- 
ver shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he 
shall  not  enter  therein.  And  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms,  put 
his  hands  on  them,  and  blessed  them." 

It  will  be  observed  that  these  children  were  not  brought  to 
Christ  for  baptism,  but  for  his  blessing :  and  there  is  no  record 
made  of  his  having  baptized  them,  or  of  his  having  ordered  them 
to  be  baptized. 

Besides,  if  he  had  been  in  the  practice  of  baptizing  infants, 
and  these  little  children  had  been  brought  to  him  to  receive 
baptism,  it  is  not  at  all  likely  that  the  disciples  would  have  re- 
buked those  that  brought  them.  Their  forbidding  them  to  be 
brought  to  him,  shows  conclusively,  that  they  had  not  been  ac- 
customed to  see  infants  baptized.  / 

Where,  then,  is  the  alleged  proof  from  these  words,  in  favour 
of  this  practice  ?  Is  it  found  in  the  compassion  which  Jesus 
manifested  towards  these  children  ?  This  would  be  equally  an 
argument  for  the  baptism  of  the  children  of  the  unbelieving  Jews 
as  for  that  of  the  believing  ;  and  for  the  baptism  of  all  classes  of 
sinners  without  regard  to  age  or  character-  for  they  are  all  the 
objects  of  his  compassion.  He  even  wept  over  impenitent  Je- 
rusalem) "  saying,  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  chil- 

7 


74  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

dren  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  brood  under  her  wings,  and  ye 
would  not."  It  will  not  do,  therefore,  to  base  the  practice  upon 
the  compassion,  tenderness,  or  kindness  which  he  manifested 
towards  these  children  :  nor  ought  we  to  excite  the  sympathies 
of  parents  to  induce  them  to  perform  what  he  has  not  required 
at  their  hands. 

Does  the  alleged  proof  of  infant  baptism,  then,  lie  in  the  de- 
claration, u  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God  ?"  It  must  be 
here  if  any  where.  And  hence  the  common  argument  is,  that 
here  is  a  recognition  of  the  membership  of  infants  in  the  New 
Testament  church,  the  same  as  in  the  old  ;  and  hence  their 
right  to  baptism  is  considered  as  following  of  course. 

It  will  be  obvious  that  none  can  avail  themselves  of  this  ar- 
gument except  such  as  believe  thai  infants  are  as  fully  members 
of  the  church  now  as  formerly. 

But  the  argument  from  their  church  membership,  if  it  proves 
any  thing,  proves  too  much,  ai.d  hence  overthrows  itself.  For 
if  it  proves  their  right  to  baptism,  it  equally  proves  their  right 
to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Infants,  as  members  of  the  Jewish 
church,  were  admitted  to  the passover  as  well  as  to  circumcision 
— yea,  females  were  also  admitted  to  the  former,  whereas  males 
only  were  admitted  to  the  latter.  And  it  is  universally  allowed 
by  Pedobaptists  that  the  LordPs  Supper  has  come  in  the  room  of 
the  passover,  as  truly  as  baptism  has  in  the  room  of  circumcis- 
ion. ' 

Therefore,  if  infants  are  to  be  baptized  because  they  are 
members  of  the  church,  they  must  also  be  brought  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  upon  the  same  ground.  The  argument  is  pre- 
cisely as  strong  in  favour  of  the  latter  as  in  favour  of  the  for- 
mer. And  there  is  evidently  no  consistency  in  bringing  them 
to  the  one  ordinance  ai.d  debarring  them  from  the  other,  when 
the  very  same  principle  which  leads  to  the  one  leads  to  the  oth- 
er also.  Yoa,  the  argument  for  infant  communion  has  addition- 
al strength,  inasmuch  as  females  were  admitted  to  the  passover 
because  of  their  church  membership  ;  whereas  they  were  ex- 
eluded  from  circumcision. 

But  only  let  this  argument  from  the  membership  of  infants 
in  the  church  have  its  full  latitude  and  effect,  and  let  infants  be 
brought  to  the  Lord's  Supper  as  well  as  to  baptism,  and  its  in- 
conclusiveness  would  at  once  be  discerned  by  all  enlightened 
evangelical  Christians.  The  celebration  of  this  ordinance  in 
that  case,  would  cease  to  be  peculiarly  the  communion  of  saints. 
It  would  be  a  transaction  common  to  believers  and  acknow- 
ledged unbelievers,     The  principle  that  grace  is  a  necessary 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM.  75 

qualification  for  communion  at  the  Lord's  table  would  have  to 
be  given  up. 

But  the  argument  from  the  church  membership  of  infants  not 
only  destroys  itself  by  proving  too  much — i.  e.  proviug  the  right 
to  the  Lord's  Supper  as  well  as  to  baptism  ;  but  it  is  otherwise 
inconclusive.  Their  membership,  if  admitted  to  be  as  full  as 
it  was  originally  in  the  Jewish  church,  would  not,  of  itself,  de- 
termine tneir  right  to  baptism.  This  is  evident  among  various 
other  considerations,  trom  the  fact  that  females  were  members 
ot  that  church,  and  yei  had  no  right  to  circumcision.  Simple 
membership ,  therefore,  in  the  church,  did  not  give  this  right. 
And  if  it  did  not  give  the  right  to  circumcision,  it  will  not  give 
the  right  to  baptism. 

If  it  be  said  th-dt  females  were  formerly  included  in  the  males, 
it  might  be  said,  with  equal  propriety,  that  children  are  now  in- 
cluded in  their  parents,  and  heuce  need  not  be  baptized  any 
more  than  lemales  Deeded  to  be  circumcised. 

If  it  be  further  said  that  the  former  seal  was  not  applicable  to 
any  but  males,  I  migat  replv,  *hat  notwithstanding  the  difference 
of  sex,  temales  might  have  had  a  mark  in  their  rlesh  as  well  as 
males  ;  or  if  simpJe  membership  in  the  church  gave  them  a 
right  to  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  some  other  seal  might,  and 
doubtless  would  have  been  adopted,  which  might  have  been, 
with  the  same  propriety  and  convenience,  applied  to  both  sexes. 
It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  right  to  circumcision  was  not 
based  upon  mere  membership  in  the  church  But  that  which 
gave  this  right  was  the  express  order  of  Gody  the  institution  6e- 
ing  positive. 

In  like  manner,  that  which  gives  a  right  to  baptism,  is  the 
express  order  of  God,  the  institution  being  disc  positive. 

If,  therefore,  it  could  be  ever  so  clearly  proved  that  the  in- 
fants of  believers  are  members  with  their  parents  in  the  New 
Testament  church,  this  would  not,  of  itself,  establish  their 
right  to  baptism  :  yea,  it  would  arloid  no  valid  argument  for 
this  practice.  We  should  need  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  as 
in  the  other  case. 

But  in  truth,  there  is  no  evidence  from  the  passage  under 
consideration,  nor  from  any  other  quarter,  that  the  membership 
of  infants  is  continued  in  the  New  Testament  church;  but 
there  is  clear  and  abundant  proof  to  the  contrary,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  and  shall  more  fully  see  hereafter. 

When  our  Saviour  said,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God," 
he  might  have  meant  that  the  subjects  of  this  kingdom 
are  like  little  children  in  their  temper  and  qualities.  Accord- 
ingly he  adds j  u  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall  not  re- 


76  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ceive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter 
therein,"  This  exposition  is  adopted  by  many  excellent  & 
vines. 

But  our  Lord,  more  probably,  meant  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
consists  of  little  children  as  well  as  of  adults  ;  i.  e.  some  little 
children  belong  to  it  as  well  as  some  adults.  The  expression 
does  not  imply  that  all  little  children  belong  to  it  any  more  than 
all  adults.  It  does  not  imply  that  all  the  little  children  of  be- 
lieving Jews  belonged  to  it  any  more  than  the  general  mass  of 
adult  Jews. 

It  is  manifest  that  the  kingdom  of  God  did  not  embosom  the 
adult  members  of  that  nation  promiscuously,  or  as  a  body;  but 
select  individuals  of  them  only,  who  were  called,  by  divine  grace, 
out  of  the  world.  The  fact,  therefore,  that  this  kingdom  con- 
sisted of  little  children  as  well  as  of  adults,  did  not  imply  that 
it  embosomed  all  little  children,  or  even  all  the  little  children 
of  believers. 

That  grace  then  reigned  in  the  hearts  of  some  little  children 
as  well  as  of  some  adults,  and  that  it  does  now,  there  is  ample 
reason  to  believe :  for  it  is  written,  "  Out  of  the  mouths  of 
babes  and  sucklings  thou  hast  perfected  praise."  As  an  emi- 
nent fulfilment  of  this  passage,  little  children  followed  Jesus 
with  the  multitude,  when  he  rode  upon  the  ass  into  Jerusalem, 
"  crying,  hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David." 

For  aught  appears,  the  children  in  question  might  have  been 
of  this  description — young  believers — such  as  could  heartily 
and  understandingly  acknowledge  Jesus  to  be  their  Saviour 
and  Lord.  Or,  if  they  were  not  already  converted,  they  might 
have  been  old  enough  to  be  instructed  and  brought  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth.  There  is  nothing  in  the  terms  "  little 
children,"  which  necessarily  conveys  the  idea  of  mere  in- 
fancy. 

Indeed,  if  they  were  mere  babes,  the  passage  may  be  easily 
explained  without  admitting  the  membership  of  infants  in  the 
gospel  church. 

But  the  probability  is  that  they  were  children  of  some  size, 
like  the  little  children  which  belong  to  the  Sabbath  schools  in 
these  days — old  enough  to  be  benefited  by  instruction.  The 
terms  used  may  be  very  properly  so  applied  and  understood. 

The  word  "  e  pais,"  from  which  "  ta  paidia,"  (little  chil- 
dren,) is  made  in  the  accusative  case  plural,  is  expressly  ap- 
plied, Luke,  viii.  54,  to  the  daughter  of  Jairus>  who  was  about 
twelve  years  of  age.  It  is  there  rendered  "  damsel  J*  but  the 
strict  meaning  of  it  is  little  child.  It  is  a  word  frequently  used 
to  denote  a  little  child.     So  that  in  the  scripture  sense  of  this 


J/     Vv       OF  THE  ' 

CHRISTIE  BAPTJSM^j  JJ  J  y  £  jjg  J  T  ^ 

term  a  little  child  may  be  twelve  years  of  %•  r§Te  ^°^t  V 
brought  to  Christ  might  have  been  as  old  as  this  damsel.  The 
word  "  brephous"  is  also  rendered  "  a  child,"  II.  Tim.  iii.  15, 
and  applied  to  Timothy  at  an  age  sufficient  to  know  the  holy 
scriptures ;  and  thereiore  it  is  not  restricted  to  a  mere  infant  as 
to  age.  Hence,  when  Luke  calls  the  children  that  were 
brought  to  Christ,  chap,  xviii.  15,  "  ta  brephe,"  (infants)  they 
might,  nevertheless,  have  been  of  a  sufficient  age  to  be  instruct- 
ed and  converted  by  means  of  the  gospel. 

The  English  terms,  infants  and  little  children,  are  used  with  a 
good  deal  of  latitude,  even  to  denote  p11  in  a  state  of  miuority. 

Therefore,  for  augh/  appears,  as  I  said,  these  children  might 
have  been  old  enough  to  be  instructed,  and  understanding^-  to 
say, "  Hosanna  to  the  son  of  David  " 

Besides,  the  position  in  which  our  Lord  is  represented  as  re- 
ceiving them,  shows  that  they  were  not  mere  babes.  "  He  took 
them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  on  them,  and  blessed  them." 
But  if  they  were  mere  babes  which  were  taken  into  his  arms 
as  we  are  wont  to  take  such  children,  it  would  not  have  been 
convenient,  as  everyone  can  see, to  a  put  his  hands  on  them." 
Therefore  no  more  is  meant  by  his  u  taking  them  up  in  his 
arms,"  than  receiving  them  between  his  knees  and  putting  his 
arms  affectionately  around  them ;  and  then,  placing  his  hands 
upon  their  heads,  as  Jacob  did  his  upon  the  heads  of  the  sons  of 
Joseph,  he  blessed  them ;  which  was  the  thing  for  which  they 
were  brought  to  him.  This  is  a  circumstance  which  corrobo- 
rates the  opinion  that  they  were  children  of  sufficient  age  to  be 
instructed. 

It  might,  therefore,  with  the  strictest  propriety  be  said}  "of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,"  i.  e.  "  the  kingdom  of  God"  con- 
sists of  such  little  children  as  these  as  well  as  of  adults :  espe- 
cially if  they  were  young  believers  already.  But  if  they,  were 
not  already  converted,  they  were  capable  of  complying  with  the 
gospel  offer,  and  hence  it  was  improper  to  forbid  them  to  come 
to  Christ. 

In  either  case,  those  parents  did  well  in»  bringing  them  to 
Jesus  for  his  blessing,  in  hope  that  he  would  instruct  them  and 
save  them. 

It  was  very  customary  with  the  Jews- to  bring  their  children 
to  persons  of  eminent  gifts,  learning  and  piety,  to  receive  their 
benediction.  The  above  transaction  seems  to  have  been  in 
compliance  with  this  custom.  And  their  bt  lieving  that  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah,  was  an  additional  reason  for  bringing  their,- 
children  to  him  to  be  blessed. 

If,  therefore,  we  understand  by  the  kingdom  cf  Godr  the 

7* 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

visible  gospel  church,  it  might  be  truly  said  that  "  of  such  is 
this  kingdom."  Some  are  called  in  very  early  life,  and  give 
credible  evidence  of  piety.  And  children  of  the  size  above 
described  are  manifestly  entitled  to  gospel  instruction,  at  least 
with  a  view  to  their  conversion. 

The  phrase  does  not  imply  that  all  little  children,  not  all  the 
children  of  believers,  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  God ;  but, 
merely,  that  some  of  them  do.  The  kingdom  of  God  consists 
of  little  children  as  well  as  of  adults.  This  is  all  the  passage 
affirms.  And  as  it  does  not  include  all  adults,  neither  does  it 
all  little  children.  Many  of  them  grow  up  in  habits  of  sin,  and 
never  give  any  evidence  of  piety. 

But  the  passage  presents  no  particular  difficulty,  allowing, 
these  children  to  have  been  mere  infants.  For  the  kingdom  of 
God  may  be  taken  in  its  highest  and  most  perfect  sense  to  mean 
the  kingdom  of  glory  ;  and  it  is  unquestionably  true  that  this 
consists  of  infants  as  well  as  of  adults.  Although  mere  infants 
cannot  exhibit  that  evidence  of  piety  and  make  that  confession 
which  is  required  to  enter  the  visible  church,  they  may  be 
sanctified  and  become  meet  subjects  of  the  invisible  church. 
The  mercy  of  God  may  reach  them  as  well  as  others.  Yea, 
there  is  reason  to  hope  that  it  does  reach  all  who  die  in  mere 
infancy,  and  that  they  are  admitted  into  the  world  of  glory. 

Nevertheless,  nothing  more  is  asserted  in  this  passage,  than 
that  some  little  children  are  of  the  kingdom,  or  belong  to  the 
kingdom  of  God.  The  words  "  of  such,"  do  not  imply  u  all 
such,"  It  may  be  said  with  reference  to  adults,  "  of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  God."  But  here  every  one  can  see  the  phrase 
does  not  mean  u  all  such."  This  kingdom  does,  indeed,  con- 
sist of  adults:  but  not  of  all  adults — all  are  not  heirs  of  glory . 
So  it  consists  of  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  but  not  of  all  of  eith- 
er. In  like  manner  it  consists  of  infants,  but  not  of  all  of  them, 
i.  e.  the  words  do  not  imply  that  it  includes  them  all  ;  and  the 
subsequent  lives  of  many  show  that  it  does  not,  though  it  may 
include  such  as  are  taken  away  in  their  infancy. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  there  is  no  proof  from  this  passage 
that  infant  membership  is  continued  in  the  gospel  church  as  it 
was  formerly  in  the  Jewish  church.  None  come  in  by  birth,  or 
by  the  profession  of  their  parents  ;  but  every  man  upon  his  own 
faith  and  profession. 

Bui  even  if  this  passage  did  contain  proof  of  the  continu- 
ance of  infant  membership,  the  same  as  in  the  Jewish  churchy 
their  baptism  would  not  follow  as  a  thing  of  course,  as  I  have 
already  shown.  It  would  be  required  that  the  will  of  Christ 
should  be  expressed  to  that  effect,  whereas  it  is  not 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  79" 

But  though  the  argument  from  the  supposed  membership  of 
infauts  fails,  it  may  still  be  plead  that  this  passage  contains 
special  encouragement  to  bring  little  children  to  Christ,  and 
hence,  as  a  natural  consequence,  that  they  should  be  offered  in 
baptism. 

I  would  reply  to  this  statement,  that  we  undoubtedly  have 
encouragement  to  bring  our  children  to  Christ  for  his  blessing  ; 
but  this  is  no  more  a  warrant  to  bring  them  to  baptism  than 
to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Will  any  pretend  that  this  is  a  warrant 
lor  bringing  children  to  the  Lord's  table  upon  their  parents^ 
faith  ?  They  might  as  well  do  it  as  to  infer  their  right  to  bap- 
tism. There  is  not  a  word  about  baptism.  These  children 
were  brought  wholly  for  another  purpose.  Can  we  not  bring 
our  children  for  a  blessing,  without  offering  them  in  baptism, 
which  we  are  no  where  required  to  do  ?  It  we  could  not  bring 
them  for  a  blessing  without  baptism,  we  could  not  bring  them 
to  be  blessed  but  once,  unless  we  would  have  baptism  continual- 
ly repeated.  But  it  is  our  duty  to  bring  then?  daily  to  Christ 
that  they  may  be  blessed.  This  subject,  therefore,  has  no  con- 
nexion with  infant  baptism.  It  fails,  in  every  view  of  it,  to  au- 
thorize this  practice. 

I  will  next  examine  Romans,  xi.  16,  17.  "  For  if  the  first 
fruit  be  holy,  the  lump  is  also  holy  :  and  if  the  root  be  holy,  so 
are  the  branches.  And  if  some  of  the  branches  be  broken  off, 
and  thou,  being  a  wild  olive  tree,  wert  graffed  in  among 
them,  and  with  them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  ol- 
ive tree." 

I  here  freely  admit  that  the  olive  tree  is  intended  to  represent; 
the  church,  and  that  the  Christian  church  is  a  continuation  of 
the  Abrahamick  ;  but  at  the  sametime  I  maintain  that  it  is  under 
anew  covenant  and  constitution — under  new  laws  and  regulations , 
and  that  these  are  such  as  exclude  all  but  believers ,  or  professed 
believers;  so  that  the  unbelieving  children  of  believers  have  no 
place  in  it.  The  church  now  may  be  essentially  the  same  as 
formerly  ;  and  yet  there  may  be  a  new  arrangement  with  regard 
to  membership.  It  may  no  longer  be  perpetuated  by  natural^ 
generation,  but  the  members  may  all  stand  by  faith.  "  Because 
of  unbelief  they  were  broken  off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith." 

Pedobaptists  suppose  that  here  is  a  relative  or  federal  holiness 
attributed  to  the  natural  seed  of  believers,  and  that  as  a  holy 
seed,  they  should  be  baptized.  Also,  that  the  root  and  fatness 
of  the  olive  tree  mean  the  blessings  and  privileges  of  the  Abra- 
hamick church,  from  which  they  infer  that  believing  Gentiles 
inherit  the  same  privileges  for  their  children  which  Abraham 
did  for  his ;  and  consequently,  that  these  must  include  the  right: 


80  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

of  applying  to  them  what  is  termed  the  new  seal  of  the  cove- 
nant, and  of  claiming  the  promise,  provided  they  are  faithful, 
that  God  will  be  their  God. 

As  to  the  first  particular,  I  would  observe,,  that  although  the 
nation  of  Israel  are  in  a  sense  called  holy,  it  will  appear,  on  care- 
ful examination,  that  this  is  not  the  subject  here  treated  of;  and 
therefore  the  passage  will  give  no  countenance  to  the  notion  of 
a  relative  holiness  now  in  the  children  of  believers. 

The  apostle  is  here  speaking  of  area/  holiness,  both  in  the 
root  and  in  the  branches.  He  is  describing  the  real  heirs  of 
promise — the  spiritual  Israel.  The  argument  runs  thus  :  If  the 
root  be  holy,  so  are  the  branches  ;  i.  e  if  Abraham,  who  is  here 
referred  to  as  th«  root,  were  a  true  believer,  and  a  pattern  for  all 
his  children,  who,  together  with  himself,  are  to  inherit  the  bless- 
ing, then  they  must  be  holy  too ;  they  must  have  the  same  cha- 
racter. The  lump  is  like  the  first  fruit.  Hence  the  holiness 
spoken  of  in  the  branches,  is  a  real  holiness,  the  same  as  in  the 
root  and  the  first  fruit. 

The  seed  embraced  in  the  promise  to  Abraham,  were  not 
"  those  of  the  circumcision  only,  but  those  who  were  also  of 
the  faith  of  Abraham."  Something  more  than  carnal  descent 
was  necessary  to  constitute  them  heirs  of  Abraham's  blessing. 
To  be  "  Abraham's  children,"  they  "  must  do  the  works  of 
Abraham." 

Rightly  to  understand  this  passage,  we  must  take  into  consi- 
deration the  whole  scope  of  the  apostle.  He  had  been  obviat- 
ing an  objection,  arising  from  God's  having  cast  off  the  major 
part  of  the  Jewish  nation,  notwithstanding  his  covenant  with 
Abraham  respecting  his  posterity,  showing  that  merely  be- 
cause the  Jews  were  the  descendants  of  that  patriarch,  they  were 
not  all  children  in  the  sense  of  the  promise.  God's  promising 
to  be  the  God  of  Abraham's  seed  in  their  generations,  did  not 
imply  that  he  would  be  the  God  of  them  a//,  but  only  of  an 
elect  seed.  Hence  it  is  said,  "  But  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be 
called  ;"  i.  e.  as  the  apostle  reasons,  "  they  that  are  the  children 
of  the  flesh,  these  are  not  the  children  of  God,  but  the  children 
of  the  promise  are  counted  for  the  seed."  "The  children  of  the 
promise"  are  the  pious,  which  God  would  call  in  the  succes- 
sive generations  of  his  posterity,  the  Isaacs  which  he  would 
multiply  to  an  indefinite  extent.  And  these  were  always  the 
objects  of  his  love  and  care. 

Therefore  he  had  not  cast  away  his  true  people,  although  even 
a  majority  of  the  Jews  were  rejected.  "  God  hath  not  cast 
away  his  people  which  he  foreknew  j"  says  the  apostle,  "fori: 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  81 

also  am  Israelite,"  &c.    "  The  election  hath  obtained  it,  and 
the  rest  were  blinded." 

This  interpretation  of  the  promise  solves  every  difficulty  re- 
specting God's  dealings  with  that  people.  And  the  view  which 
is  here  given  of  the  case  is  only  further  illustrated  and  extend- 
ed in  the  passage  under  examination. 

The  16th  verse  should  be  taken  in  connexion  with  the  7th; 
for  what  comes  between,  is  rather  a  digression,  though  it 
pertains,  in  some  degree,  to  the  main  subject  treated  of.  The 
argument  then  will  be  this,  viz.  "  The  election  hath  obtained 
it,  and  the  rest  were  blinded."  The  heirs  of  promise  were  ex- 
pressly designed  to  be  a  holy  people :  God  said  he  would  u  mul- 
tiply Abraham,"  i.  e.  literally  and  spiritually  y  the  latter  was  the 
highest  and  most  important  sense  ;  i.  e.  he  engaged  that  he  would 
multiply  persons  of  his  character  as  the  stars  of  heaven. 
Hence  for  any  to  be  included  in  the  promise  as  heirs  of  the  fame 
blessing  with  him,  they  must  have  the  same  character — they 
must  likewise  be  holy — not  federally  or  relatively  holy,  but  re- 
ally holy.  "  For  if  theirs*  fruit  be  holy,"  i.  e.  if  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  were  truly  holy  me/*,  u  the  lump  is  also  holy  y" 
i.  e.  the  whole  body  of  the  seed  included  in  the  promise,  is  holy 
too,  and  that  in  the  same  sense  y  as  the  whole  lump  of  dough,  or 
the  whole  harvest  was  holy  in  the  same  sense  that  the  first  fruit 
was. 

Again  :  And  if  the  root  be  holy,  i.  e.  if  Abraham  the  father 
of  the  Jewish  nation  be  holy,  so  are  the  branches,  viz.  the 
branches  included  in  the  promise — the  seed  that  should  be  called 
and  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham.  It  was  manifestly  intend- 
ed that  the  same  holiness  should  descend  from  generation  to  ge- 
neration to  give  a  right  to  the  promise.  "  Abraham's  children" 
must  and  "  would  do  the  works  of  Abraham."  "  If  the  root 
be  holy,  so  are  the  branches,  viz.  the  approved  branches— the 
real  heirs  y  for  they  were  not  all  Israel  which  were  of  Israel ; 
neither  because  they  were  the  seed  of  Abraham  were  they  all 
children." 

The  apostle  adds  :  "  And  if  some  of  the  branches   be   bro- 
ken off."     "  The  branches,"  in  this  clause,  mean  not  the  holy  ' 
branches,  but  the  mere  u  natural  branches" — those  that  u  were 
of  the  circumcision  only" 

The  olive  tree,  previous  to  this  breaking  off  of  some  of  the 
branches,  included  the  nation,  all  of  the  posterity  of  Abra- 
ham in  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob.  God,  then,  separated  one 
whole  nation  in  distinction  from  all  other  nations,  to  be  his  peo- 
ple, and  thus  connected  church  and  state  together  ;  so  that  chil  - 


82  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

dren  were  then  born  in  the  church,  because  they  were  born  oy 
the  nation  which  God  had  thus  separated  to  be  his  people. 

But  he  has  now  placed  the  same  church  under  a  new  cove- 
nant or  constitution  whereby  the  sound  part  is  retained,  i.  e. 
the  believers,  and  the  residue  is  c?4  off  or  rejected.  The  church 
is  no  longer  perpetuated  by  natural  descent,  or  in  a  national  ca- 
pacity as  before,  but  consists  of  select  individuals  that  are  born 
of  the  Spirit,  or  of  such  as  profess  and  appear  to  be  born  of  the 
Spirit. 

Hence  the  branches  that  are  said  to  be  broken  off,  are  the 
mere  u  natural  branches" — u  children  according  to  the  flesh," 

This  construction  does,  indeed,  make  the  apostle  speak  of 
two  sorts  of  branches  in  these  two  verses.  But  it  is  evidently 
as  proper  to  understand  him  to  speak  of  two  sorts  of  branches 
in  these  connected  verses,  as  to  understand  him  to  speak  of  two 
kinds  of  holiness  in  a  single  verse,  viz.  the  1 6th,  as  the  Pedo- 
baptist  interpretation  maintains,  viz.  area/  holiness  and  a  fed- 
cral  holiness.  For  there  were  "  children  of  the  stock  of  Abra- 
ham, who  were  not  of  his  faith;  and  such  were  broken  off; 
while  the  rest,  the  believers,  remained  ;  and  with  those  that  re- 
mained, believing  Gentiles  were  graffedin.  The  church,  or  the 
olive  tree,  under  the  new  constitution,  is  composed  of  belie- 
ving Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  of  no  other.  It  being  no  longer 
national  in  its  character,  infants  are  no  longer  members  by  birth, 
nor  are  they  considered,  feder a lly,  a  holy  deed.  But  the  church 
is  a  select  company,  called  out  of  the  world 

Some  of  the  branches  were  broken  off,  and  some  remained. 
Now  the  question  is,  viho  remained.  The  Pedobaptists  say,  be- 
lievers and  their  infant  children.  But  where  is  the  proof  of 
this?  It  is,  surely,  not  contained  in  this  chapter;  but  the 
contrary  is  manifestly  implied.  The  words  u  because  of  unbe- 
lief they  were  broken  off,"  show  that  ail  unbelievers^  whether 
old  or  young,  were  broken  off,  and  that  none  but  believers 
were  retained.  And  all  mankind  are  divided  into  these  two 
classes.  Although  mere  infants  cannot  be  said  openly  to  reject 
the  gospel,  they  are  depraved  by  nature,  and  cannot  be  reckon- 
ed among  the  friends  of  Christ ;  but  must  be  included  in  the 
class  of  unbelievers.  No  one  can  consistently  say  they  are  in- 
cluded among  believers,  and  that  they  M  stand  by  faith." 

I  do  not  deny  that  some  of  them  have  the  principle  of  faith, 
or  that  they  are  born  of  the  Spirit,  and  sanctified,  as  it  werer 
from  the  womb.  And,  consequently,  should  they  die  in  in- 
fancy, they  are  prepared  to  join  the  blood-washed  throng  in 
heaven. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  83 

Still  they  are  not  born  into  the  world  with  the  principle  of 
faith  ;  otherwise  they  would  not  need  to  be  horn  again. 

Therefore,  merely  as  infants,  or  by  virtue  of  their  being  born 
of  pious  parents,  they  are  not  members  of  the  household  of  faith. 
Consequently,  they  cannot  be  considered  as  standing  by  birth, 
in  the  good  olive,  seeing  that  all  who  lemain  therein  stand  by 
faith. 

It  is  evident  that,  although  some  infants  are  sanctified  in  that 
early  age,  (and  perhaps  all  who  die  before  they  come  to  years 
of  understanding,)  multitudes  are  not  sanctified,  but  grow  up 
in  sin  and  unbelief.  Therefore  it  would  be  highly  absurd  to 
consider  infants  in  common,  or  even  the  'infants  of  believers,  as 
renewed  unto  holiness.  And  even  those  who  are  renewed 
cannot  give  evidence  thereof,  nor  can  they  undeistandiugly  en- 
joy any  church  privilege.  It  is  not  our  province  to  judge  the 
heart,  and  hence  the  incapacity  of  infants  to  give  a  reason  of 
the  Christian's  hope,  forbids  their  being  received  as  disciples  and 
baptized.  So  far  as  the  rule  for  baptism  and  church  fellowship 
is  respected,  they  must  be  considered  in  unbelief.  They  ac- 
tually are  in  unbelief  unless  born  of  the  Spirit :  and  such  of 
them  as  may  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  cannot  give  us  the  evidence 
thereof;  and  so  we  have  no  rule  that  reaches  their  case  ;  but 
must  leave  them  to  the  disposal  of  God. 

The  cutting  off  of  the  branches,  so  far  as  the  invisible  church 
is  respected,  includes  all  who  are  unrenewed,  of  every  age : 
and  as  the  visible  church  is  respected,  it  includes  all  who  are 
not  visibly  and  professedly  renewed.  Some  may  belong  to  the 
former  who  do  not  belong  to  the  latter;  and  some  may  belong 
to  the  latter  who  do  not  belong  to  the  former.  The  rule  by 
which  we  are  to  act  will  neither  bring  into  the  visible  church 
of  God  every  true  saint,  nor  exclude  every  one  that  is  not  a 
true  saint.  The  visible  church,  like  the  invisible,  is  a  select 
society,  and  there  are  certain  qualifications  necessary  in  those 
that  are  received;  but  these  qualifications  maybe  apparently, 
yet  not  really  possessed  ;  and  so  the  church  be  deceived  with 
regard  to  some  of  her  members. 

It  is  no  argument  that  the  infants  of  believers  should  be  reck- 
oned with  the  household  of  faith,  and  baptized,  on  the  ground 
that  some  of  them  may  be  born  of  the  Spirit ;  because  if  ad- 
mitted, it  would  be  equally  in  favour  of  the  baptism  of  the  in- 
fants of  unbelievers  ;  for  doubtless  some  of  them  are  born  of  the 
Spirit  too.  And  certainly  the  former  are  no  more  capable  of 
manifesting  a  renewal  than  the  latter. 

Besides,  if  we  were  to  say  that  the  seed  of  believers  are  to 
be  considered  really  holy  till  they  manifest  the  contrary  by  their 


34  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

conduct,  and  so  base  their  union  to  the  olive  tree  and  their  bap- 
tism on  this  ground,  the  argument  could  not  apply  in  favour  of 
household  baptism,  because  it  frequently  happens  that  a  house- 
hold contains  children  who  are  old  enough  to  be  ranked  deci- 
dedly with  unbelievers.  And  such  are  often  baptized,  too,  up- 
on the  faith  of  parents.  Here  is  an  evident  inconsistency  : 
for  these  children  most  clearly  belong  to  the  class  of  unbeliev- 
ers who  are  cut  off. 

To  remedy  the  whole  difficulty,  will  it  be  said  that  the  faith 
by  which  the  children  stand  is  merely  the  faith  of  the  parents, 
and  that  the  former  are  acknowledged  to  be  unbelievers  ? 

In  reply  to  this  I  would  remark,  that  in  no  part  of  the  account 
given  of  the  good  olive  is  it  said  that  parents  stand  by  faith  to- 
gether with  their  unbelieving  children  ;  but  the  privilege  is  limit- 
ed to  actual  believers.     "  And  thou  standest  by  faith." 

But  it  will  be  further  plead  that  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  be- 
lieving Gentiles  partaking  of  "  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive 
tree,  by  which  must  be  meant  the  blessings  and  privileges  of 
the  Abraharaick  church,  and  consequently,  as  circumcision 
was  formerly  applied  to  infants  as  a  token  of  these  blessings,  so 
baptism  should  be  applied  to  them  now. 

This  argument  implies  that  baptism  is  a  substitute  for  circum- 
cision, which  is  not  the  case,  as  I  have  already  shown.  Be- 
sides, it  implies  that  females  were  circumcised  as  well  as  males, 
which  was  not  the  case.  It  also  implies  that  the  children  of 
Jewish  believers  were  continued  in  the  gospel  church,  which 
is  taking  for  granted  the  very  thing  in  dispute.  If  those  chil- 
dren were  not  considered  as  belonging  to  the  good  olive  after  the 
breaking  off  before  mentioned,  as  I  have  shown,  then  the  root 
and  fatness  of  the  tree,  of  which  believing  Gentiles  partake,  in 
common  with  believing  Jews,  must  mean  something  which  both 
inherit  J  or  themselves,  and  not  for  their  children,  viz.  justifica- 
tion by  faith  and  eternal  life.  "  So  then,"  says  the  apostle  Paul, 
in  another  place,  "  they  that  are  of  faith  are  blessed  with  faith- 
ful Abraham." 

I  know  we  meet  with  the  following  words  in  the  Abrahamick 
covenant,  viz.  "  To  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  af- 
ter thee."  But  the  seed  here  is  not  restricted  to  his  immediate 
children,  as  the  argument  for  infant  baptism  implies;  but  em- 
braces his  remote  posterity  also  :  therefore,  if  the  promise  ap- 
plies to  each  believing  parent  in  the  same  sense  that  it  did  to 
him,  and  baptism  is  to  be  administered  to  his  seed  on  the  same 
principle  that  circumcision  was  to  Abraham's,  then  not  only  his 
immediate  children,  but  his  grand  children  and  great  grand  chil- 
dren, yea,  all  his  succeeding  posterity,  must  be  baptized  on  his 
account,  or  by  virtue  of  God's  covenant  with  him.    And  con- 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  85 

isequently  the  church  would  become  completely  national.  It 
is  very  manifest  that  the  right  of  circumcision  to  Abraham's 
seed,  however  remote,  was  based  not  upon  the  faith  of  successive 
parents,  but  upon  their  descent  from  him,  and  God's  order  that 
they  should  be  circumcised  in  their  generations.  Therefore, 
there  would  be  no  authority  for  requiring  faith  of  each  succes- 
sive parent  in  the  line,  in  order  to  the  baptism  of  his  children, 
but  the  right  of  all  would  follow  from  the  faith  of  the  first. 
Certainly,  the  seed  included  with  Abraham  embraced  his  re- 
mote as  well  as  immediate  children  ;  although  all  of  each  gene- 
ration were  not  heirs  of  his  blessing  ;  but  only  such  as  the  co- 
venant should  be  established  with,  or  such  as  should  be  effect- 
ually called.  Yet  all  the  natural  seed  were  to  be  circumcised. 
Hence  it  will  be  seen,  that  if  we  insist  that  the  covenant  is  es- 
tablished with  each  believing  parent  in  the  same  sense  that  it 
was  with  him,  and  hence  infer  the  duty  of  infant  baptism,  the 
right  to  baptism  belongs  as  much  to  his  remote  posterity  as  to 
his  immediate.  And  if  this  extent  of  the  right  is  not  maintain- 
ed, the  argument  is  lost;  and  Abraham's  case  must  be  confess- 
ed to  be  peculiar,  as  it  truly  was. 

It  is  abundantly  manifest  that  parents  in  common  do  not 
stand  in  the  same  relation  to  this  covenant  that  Abraham  did — 
not  even  Jewish  parents.  God  has  not  made  such  a  promise  to 
each  believer  respecting  his  seed  after  him  in  their  successive 
generations  as  he  did  to  that  patriarch.  His  was  a  peculiar 
case.  He  was  the  honoured  father  of  the  Jewish  nation,  which 
God,  by  a  free  and  sovereign  act,  separated  from  all  other  na- 
tions. God  promised  not  only  that  he  would  give  him  a  nume- 
rous natural  posterity,  but  also  a  numerous  spiritual  posterity 
from  among  them,  and  also  from  the  Gentiles.  And  to  this  seed, 
which  he  would  call,  by  his  grace,  in  their  successive  genera- 
tions, he  promised  to  be  a  God.  This,  therefore,  gives  a  very 
different  view  of  the  case  from  that  which  is  presented  by  lim- 
iting the  term  seed,  to  his  immedi ate  offspring  ;  and  fully  evinces 
that  he  stood  in  a  peculiar  relation  to  the  covenant  made  with 
him,  and  that  ordinary  parents  were  not  to  be  thus  distinguish- 
ed. Others  are  not  fathers  of  the  faithful  in  the  sense  that  he , 
was.  But  all  believers,  first  among  the  Jews,  and  then 
among  the  Gentiles,  are  the  seed  of  Abraham,  to  whom  the 
promise  was  made,  and  is  sure.  Thus,  as  the  apostle  asserts, 
"  he  was  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them  who  are  not  of 
the  circumcision  only,  but  who  also  walk  in  the  steps  of  that 
faith  which  he  had,  being  yet  uncircumcised."  He  was  also  the 
father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not  circumcis* 

8. 


ii6  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ed,  inasmuch  as  he  was  the  progenitor  of  Christ,  and  a  consti- 
tuted pattern  of  justifying  faith. 

But  notice  here,  particularly,  that  he  was  not  "  the  father  of 
circumcisi&n"  to  Gentile  believers,  as  some  very  improperly 
state,  and  hence  ground  an  argument  for  infant  baptism.  The 
Bible  says  no  such  thing,  as  every  one,  on  careful  exami- 
nation, will  see.  He  was  simply  "  the  father  of  all  them  that 
believe  though  they  be  not  circumcised."  And  this  he  was  in 
the  two  respects  above  named. 

It  cannot  be  made  out  that  each  succeeding  believing  parent 
takes  exactly  the  place  of  Abraham,  or,  in  all  important  re- 
spects ;  and  that  he  is  an  heir  to  all  respecting  his  seed  which 
was  promised  to  Abraham  respecting  bis.  God  does  indeed 
promise  to  each  believer  the  blessing  of  a  free  justification 
through  faith  in  Christ,  and  engages  to  be  his  God ;  and  to 
enjoy  this,  is  what  is  intended  by  partaking  of  the  root  and 
fatness  of  the  olive  tree. 

God  did  undoubtedly  promise  blessings  both  temporal  and 
spiritual  in  this  covenant,  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  indefinitely, 
not  only  of  the  first  generation,  but  of  the  tenth&nd  the  fortieth, 
and  beyond.  He  also  promised  the  blessings  of  salvation  to 
the  Gentiles  indefinitely,  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

But  it  will  not  hence  follow,  that  each  believer  steps  into 
Abraham's  shoes.  Isaac  and  Jacob  did,  indeed,  partly  stand  in 
the  same  relation  to  their  posterity  that  Abraham  did  ;  yet  there 
was  a  difference  in  some  respects  in  their  cases.  Every  thing 
was  not  promised  to  them  that  was  promised  to  him.  And  as  to 
ordinary  believers,  there  is  a  vast  difference  between  their 
standing  and  that  of  Abraham's.  They  are  not  Abraham,  nor 
a  succession  of  Abrahams.  Instead  of  being  the  fathers  of  the 
faithful,  they  are  the  seed  of  faithful  Abraham.  They  are  all 
included  in  the  term  seed,  and  therefore  cannot  stand  in  rela- 
tion to  the  covenant  as  fathers.  Abraham  and  his  seed  include 
the  whole.  "  For  if  ye  be  Christ's,"  says  Paul,  "  then  are  ye 
Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise,"  viz.  the 
following :  "  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."  Christ  was  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  hence,  if  we 
are  the  children  of  Christ,  we  are  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and 
heirs  of  the  same  justifying  righteousness.  To  be  freely  justi- 
fied by  faith,  is  to  be  heirs  according  to  the  promise,  or  to  par- 
take of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree. 

It  cannot  be  the  meaning  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abra- 
ham that  all  believers  should  partake  of  every  thing  promised  to 
him  ;  for  it  is  certain  that  they  were  not  all  to  be  the  natural 
progenitors  of  Christ — that  they  were  not  all  to  have  a  nume- 
rous posterity,  and  that  kings  were  not  to  come  out  of  them  all 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM*  87 

—that  they  were  not  all  to  be  the  fathers  of  many  nations,  and 
that  Gentile  believers  were  not  to  have  the  land  of  Canaan  for 
their  inheritance ;  but  these  blessings  were  all  engaged  to  him. 
Therefore,  partaking  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree, 
means  something  short  of  enjoying  all  those  things  which  were 
pioraised  to  Abraham.  It  is  restricted  to  that  great  blessing  of 
justification  and  salvation  by  faith  in  Jesus  tJhrist. 

There  will  doubtless  be  a  seed  born  to  Christ,  and  conse- 
quently to  Abraham,  in  the  successive  generations  of  Gentiles 
as  well  as  Jews  ;  and  so  the  covenant  made  with  him  will  be 
in  operation  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  be,  in  fact,  what  it  was 
termed,  an  everlasting  covenant. 

But  while  Abraham  thus  becomes  "  the  father  of  many  na- 
tions," or  "  the  heir  of  the  world,"  by  means  of  believers  of 
all  nations  being  justified  and  blessed  in  his  seed,  i.  e.  in  Christ 
Jesus,  it  is  evident  that  there  were  certain  blessings  promised 
to  him  and  his  natural  posterity,  irt  this  covenant,  which  do  not 
belong  to  the  Gentiles,  (though  the  Gentiles  may  enjoy  others 
of  equal  amount,)  and  hence  the  covenant,  as  a  whole,  and  cir- 
cumcision as  its  appointed  token,  were  peculiar  to  the  nation  of 
Israel. 

Circumcision,  as  I  have  before  conclusively  shown,  was  ne- 
ver intended  for  the  Gentiles,  in  their  separate  national  capacity, 
nor  has  it  ever  been  abolished  to  the  Jews.  Some  of  the  pe- 
culiar blessings  contained  in  this  covenant,  are  yet  to  be  further 
fulfilled  to  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham,  and  hence  they  are 
bound  to  continue  the  use  of  its  seal.  And  they  will,  undoubt- 
edly, continue  a  separate  people,  that  God  may  abundantly  ful- 
fil what  he  promised  and  sealed  to  that  patriarch. 

But  let  not  us  Gentiles  complain,  neither  let  us  boast.  God's 
peculiar  goodness  to  Abraham's  seed  formerly,  and  his  intended 
goodness  to  them  hereafter,  ought  not  to  excite  our  envy  or  our 
murmurs :  for  he  has  a  right  to  do  what  he  will  with  his  own. 
Besides,  although  our  lot,  in  certain  respects,  is  plainly  to  be 
distinguished  from  theirs,  he  hath  dealt  bountifully  with  us  also, 
in  respect  both  of  spiritual  and  temporal  blessings. 

As  the  work  of  grace  was  mainly  carried  on  formerly,  for' 
many  centuries,  among  the  Jews,  and  they  were  first  favour- 
ed with  the  light  of  the  gospel ;  so  it  has  latterly  been  mainly 
carried  on,  for  centuries,  among  the  Gentiles.  u  Bliudness  in 
part,  has  happened  to  Israel,  until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be 
come  in."  * 

Moreover,  we  have  a  goodly  portion  of  the  earth,  and  abun- 
dant supplies  of  temporal  good  things,  although  the  Lord'has  not 
given  us  the  land  of  Canaan.     And  in  respect  of  spiritual  pri~ 


SS  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

vileges,  we  stand  on  a  level  with  the  Jews.  Yea,  our  spiritual 
privileges,  at  present,  are  much  greater  than  theirs,  though  it  is 
their  own  unbelief  which  excludes  them.  The  gospel  consti- 
tution was  designed,  in  this  respect,  to  bring  both  on  a  level. 
"Seeing  it  is  one  God  which  justifieth  the  circumcision  by 
faith,  and  the  uncircumcision  through  faith."  The  Jew  is  not  re- 
commended to  God  by  his  circumcision,  nor  the  Gentile  by  his 
uncircumcision  ;  nor  is  either  hindered  from  coming  \o  him  by 
his  peculiar  linea;  descent  or  local  condition.  All  are  naturally 
guilty  before  God,  and  must  be  justified  by  faith.  All  need  the 
new  birth  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  "  For  in  (.  hrist 
Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  any  thing,  nor  uncircum- 
cision;  but  a  new  creature."  And  "  faith,  which  worketh  by 
love,"  is  the  only  thing  which  justifies  through  the  righteous- 
ness ol  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "  Where  is  boasting  then  ? 
It  is  excluded.  By  what  law? — of  works?  Nay,  but  by 
the  law  of  faith." 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  fair  and  full  statement  of  what  is 
meant  by  M  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree,"  and  by  be- 
ing u  heirs  according  to  the  promise." 

The  promise  ot  God  is  not  to  each  believer  and  his  seed  af- 
ter him,,  in  their  successive  generations,  in  the  same  extensive 
and  peculiar  sense  that  it  was  to  Abraham  and  his.  For  it  must 
be  always  carefully  understood  that  Uie  promise  to  him  respect- 
ing his  seed  was  not  limited  to  his  immediate  children,  as  the  ar- 
gument herefrom  for  infant  baptism  implies;  but  extended  to 
his  remote  posterity  ;  and  hence  it  was  the  order  of  God  that  the 
whole  should  be  circumcised.  The  nation  was,  in  God's  own 
time  and  way,  to  inherit  the  laud  of  Canaan,  and  some  in  each 
successive  generation  were  to  be  called  by  grace,  and  so  a  seed 
like  Abraham  be  preserved,  which  ultimately  should  be  as  nu- 
merous as  the  stars  of  heaven,  or  as  the  sand  upon  the  seashore. 

Now,  to  pretend  that  God  promises  all  this  to  ordinary  belie- 
vers, and  that  each  believing  parent  stands  in  the  same  relation 
to  that  covenant  which  Abraham  did,  is  to  maintain  what  there 
is  no  foundation  for.  The  argument  from  the  covenant  made 
with  him,  if  it  proves  any  thing,  proves  too  much — vastly  too 
much;  and  therefore,  according  to  an  acknowledged  rule  of 
logick,  proves  nothing. 

It  not  only  implies  what  is  not  true  of  other  believers,  and 
what  will  not  be  pretended  to  belong  to  them,  but  it  proves,  so  far 
as  it  can  be  brought  to  bear  at  all  upon  the  case,  that  all  of  a 
man's  posterity  should  be  baptized  upon  his  faith,  however  re- 
mote; yea,  that  the  Gentiles  should  be  nationally  baptized,  as 
the  Jews  were  nationally  circumcised.     So  that  we  should  havq 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  89 

national  churches  at  once,  enclosing,  by  their  very  constitution, 
vast  multitudes  of  unbelievers ;  and  there  would  be  no  longer 
any  distinction  between  the  church  and  the  world. 

The  extent,  therefore,  to  which  this  argument  will  carry  us, 
shows  its  inconclusiveness. 

On  the  whole,  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  Abraham's  case  was  a 
peculiar  one  in  various  respects  ;  and  that  God  made  a  peculiar 
covenant  with  him.  And  instead  of  claiming  to  stand  in  his 
shoes,  and  of  applying  to  ourselves  and  our  seed  all  that  was 
promised  to  him  and  his,  we  ought  to  be  satisfied  with  hav- 
ing a  place  among  the  spiritual  seed,  and  with  being  heirs, 
through  faith,  of  the  same  justification,  adoption,  and  sanctifi- 
cation,  and  of  the  same  eternal  glory  which  will  be  awarded  to 
them,  and  with  the  opportunity  afforded  for  our  children  to 
hear  the  same  gospel,  believe  and  be  saved,  and  with  the  gene- 
ral encouragement  which  attends  the  use  of  means  and  the  ef- 
fectual fervent  prayer  of  the  righteous.  S  he  great  and  essential 
blessing,  which  all  sinners  need,  is  common  to  Jews  and  Gtntiles  ; 
and  to  enjoy  this  is  to  be  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham,  or  to 
inherit  what  is  called  in  another  place  u  the  fulness  of  the  bless- 
big  of  the  gospel  of   Christ." 

I  will  now  examine  I.  Corinthians,  vii.  14.  u  For  the  unbe- 
lieving husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving 
wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband  :  else  were  your  children  un- 
clean;  but  now  are  they  holy." 

Pedobaptists  do  not  suppose  that  a  real  holiness  is  here  attribu* 
ted  to  the  children  of  the  believing  parent ;  but  a  relative  or 
federal  holiness,  which  sort  of  holiness,  to  say  the  least,  is  very 
difficult  to  be  described. 

But  whatever  it  be,  it  belongs  as  much  to  the  unbelieving  pa- 
rent as  to  the  children.  For  it  is  said  that  "  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
sanctified  by  the  husband."  And  to  be  •*  sanctified"  is  to  be 
made  holy.  Here,  therefore,  is  a  holiness  positively  ascribed  to 
the  unbelieving  parent  as  well  as  to  the  children.  Conse- 
quently, if  the  latter  are  ta  be  baptized  because  they  are 
holy,  the  former  must  be  baptized  likewise,  because  he  is' 
sauctified.  The  argument  is  just  as  good  for  the  baptism  of 
the  unbelieving  partner  for  the  sake  of  the  believing  as  for  the 
baptism  of  the  unbelieving  children.  The  right  of  the  children  to 
thisordinauce  is  based  upon  the  holiness  which  is  here  attribut- 
ed to  them.  Who,  therefore,  can  avoid  seeing  that  the  sancli- 
fication  attributed  to  the  unbelieving  parent  gives  him  an  e'qual 
light  thereto  ? 

It  is  argued  that  the  children  here  are  called  holy,  thoud 

8* 


90  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

but  one  of  the  parents  be  a  believer,  in  the  same  sense  that  the 
children  of  the  Jews  were,  and  to  illustrate  the  subject,  refer- 
ence is  had  to  Ezra,  ix.  2  :  "  For  they  have  taken  of  their 
daughters  for  themselves,  and  for  their  sons  :  so  that  the  holy 
seed  have  mingled  themselves  with  the  people  of  those  lands." 
But  it  will  be  readily  seen  that  the  terms,  u  holy  seed," 
are  here  applied  to  adults — to  such  as  were  capable  of  marriage 
— to  fathers  and  sons  together,  which  furnishes  proof,  among 
many  other  passages,  that  seed  means  posterity,  aud  is  here  ap- 
plied tathe  posterity  of  Abraham,  including  adults  as  well  as  in- 
fants. But  while  thtf  passage  does  not  meet  the  case,  I  admit 
that  the  nation,  including  parents  and  children,  is  called  a  holy 
nation  ;  because  God  had  severed  it  from  all  others  to  be  his 
people,  and  had  promised  to  preserve  a  truly  holy  seed  among 
it ;  and  because  he  had  taken  it,  collectively,  into  covenant 
with  him  at  Sinai,  which  covenant,  being  conditional  and  not 
absolute,  was  made  with  all  the  people,  both,  great  and  small, 
and  was  transmitted  to. generations  then  unborn.  -  Such  of  the 
congregation  as.  were  capable  of  acting,  promised  to  obey  it,  and 
the  rest  were  bound  by  God's  order  to  obey  it  when  they  became 
capable.  This,  though  founded,  as  well  aa  the  Abrahamickc 
on  the  covenant  of  grace,  was  distinct  therefrom,  as  I  shall  have 
occasion  hereafter  more  fully  to  show. 

That  people,  therefore,  as  a  body,  were  called  holy,  either 
because  of  their  separation  from  other  nations,  or  because  0$ 
their  having  nationally  entered  into  the  covenant  at  Sinai,  or 
because  of  God's  having  always  a  remnant,  at  least,  among 
them  that  were  truly  holy  ;  or  for  all  these  reasons  together. 
And  the  children  being  a  part  of  the  nation,  were  considered, 
in  a  sense,  holy,  together  with  their  parents,  though  they  were5> 
by  nature,  wholly  depraved. 

But  agreeably  to  the  prediction  of  the  prophets,  Jeremiah 
and  Zachariah,  God  has  "broken  the  covenant  which  he  made 
with  all  the  people,"  viz*,  the  Sinai  covenant,  and  introduced 
M  a  new  covenant,"  which  is  made  with  only  a  part  of  them — 
(i  the  remnant"  which  he  has  called,  and  will  call  by  his  grace. 
And  together  with  the  breaking  of  this  covenant,  the  whole  of 
the  Mosaick  ritual  is  disannulled,  and  the  partition  wall  be- 
tween Jews  and  Gentiles  is  broken,  down.  Consequently 
the  former  relative  national  holiness  of  the  Jews  has  ceased. 
No  man  is  henceforth  to  be  called  common  or  unclean,  as  the 
J^ord  expressly  showed  in  Peter's  vision  of  the  "  great  sheet  let 
down  from  heaven,"  enclosing  "all  manner  of  four  footed  beasts 
and  creeping  things,  and  fowls  of  the  air,"  The  notion  that, 
there  is  now  ^relative,  or  federal  holiness  in  the  children  of  the 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  .     91 

believer,  is  without  foundation  ;  and  hence  the  argument  Built 
thereon  is  lost. 

The  true  sense  of  this  passage  appears  to  be  the  following., 
viz.  Inasmuch  as  it  was  unlawful  for  the  Jews  to- marry  wives 
from  among  other  nations,  and  as  those  who  had  done  so  were 
expressly  required,  after  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  captiv- 
ity, to  put  them  away,  together  with  the  children  that  were 
born  of  them,  as  being  an  illegal  progeny  ;  this  circumstance, 
probably,  induced  a  doubt  among  the  Corinthians,  or  some  part 
of  them,  whether  it  were  lawful  for  believers  to  continue  in 
marriage  with  their  heathenish  companions  ;  and  they  had,  pro- 
bably, proposed  this  matter  to  Paul  in  a  letter,  as  a  case  of 
conscience.  Whereupon  he  decides,  in  case  the  unbelieving 
partner  chose  to  remain  with  the  believing,  that  no  separation 
ought  to  take  place  The  circumstance  that  one  was  a  believer 
and  the  other  not,  did  not,  by  any  means,  nullify  the  marriage 
covenant  into  which  they  had  entered,  or  render  it  unlawful  to 
continue  it.  The  case,  though  it  might  seem  to  resemble  that 
mentioned  by  Ezra,  was  not  to  be  disposed  of  as  that  was,  see- 
ing the  Gentiles  were  never  under  the  ceremonial  law,  and  see- 
ing that  law  was  now  abolished  to  the  Jews  themselves.  And 
to  make  the  case  plain,  and  to  render  the  lawfulness  of  the  par- 
ties continuing  to  cohabit  manifest,  he  says,  u  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
sanctified  by  the  husband  ;  else  were  your  children  unclean  ; 
but  now  are  they  holy" — i.  e  the  believing  party's  connexion 
with  the  unbelieving,  was  pure  and  lawful,  and  consequently 
the  children  were  cleani  whereas,  if  it  were  not  lawful,  they 
would  be  illegitimate. 

The  unbeliever  was  sanctified  to  the  use  of  the  believer. 
As  it  is  written,  "  to  the  pure,  all  things  are  pure  ;"  and  "  every 
creature  of  God  is  good,  and  nothing  to  be  refused ;  for  it  is 
sanctified  by  the  word  of  God  and  prayer."  All  those  things 
which  God  hath  created,  and  all  those  institutions  which  he 
hath  appointed  for  man's  benefit,  are  lawful,  pure,  and  sancti- 
fied to  Christians.  Among  these  institutions,  marriage  holds  a 
conspicuous  place.  The  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by 
the  wife,  or  is  continued  in  the  married  state  without  defilement 
or  impropriety  ;  and  vice  versa. 

This  sanctification  rather  relates  to  the  continuance  of  the 
married  relation  under  the  circumstances  stated,  than  to  the 
formation  of  it  in  the  first  place.  There  is  nothing  said  which 
implies  that  the  marriage,  at  first,  was  illegal,  and  that  people 
cannot  be  legally  married  unless  at  least  one  of  the  parties  is  a 
believer — nothing  which  implies  that  the  children  of  parents. 


92  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 

who  are  both  unbelievers  are  bastards.  The  lawfulness  of  the 
connexion,  at  first,  is  plainly  admitted  ;  nobody  appears  to  have 
questioned  it.  The  doubt  which  arose  related  to  the  continu- 
ance of  the  marriage  connexion  after  one  of  the  parties  became 
a  believer,  and  the  other  remained  a  heathen  ;  and  the  law- 
fulness of  its  continuance  is  what  the  apostle  intends  to  assert. 
"  Else,"  says  he,  or  otherwise,  u  your  children  were  unclean ; 
but  now  are  they  holy."  That  is,  if  the  continuance  of  mar- 
riage under  such  circumstances  were  not  pure  and  lawful,  your 
children  would  be  impure,  or  illegitimate  :  but,  as  the  case 
actually  is,  they  are  pure  and  lawfully  begotten.  The  connexion 
of  the  parents  being  pure,  the  children  are  pure  of  course. 
"  Marriage  is  honourable  in  all,  and  the  bed  undefiled  ;"  and 
this  continues  to  be  the  case,  though  one  of  the  parties  has 
embraced  the  gospel,  and  the  other  continues  in  heathenism,  or 
unbelief. 

The  Greek  word  "  agioi,"  here  evidently  means  the  opposite 
of  unclean,  i.  e.  clean  Dr.  M 'Knight,  in  his  critical  exposition 
of  the  epistles,  says  that  M  agios"  primarily  signifies  "  that 
which  is  clean,  or  free  from  defilement;"  and,  as  evidence  of 
this,  refers  to  Deut.  xxiii.  11  :  u  i  herefore  shall  thy  camp  be 
holy,  that  he  see  no  unclean  thing."  And  M  egiastai,"  he  says, 
means  u  cleansed  from  those  defilements  which  render  a  thing 
unfit  for  sacred  use,"  or,  "  fitted  for  a  particular  use."  If  these 
definitions  are  correct,  (and  no  one  will  question  that  the  doctor 
was  a  great  scholar,)  the  above  construction  is  perfectly  fair 
and  natural.  The  apostle  does  not  mean  that  the  children  in 
question  are  saints,  as  some  render  "  agioi,"  or  that  they  are 
holy  in  the  sense  that  the  children  of  God  are,  or  that  professing 
Christians  are  so  denominated  :  but  he  uses  the  word  in  the 
primary  sense,  to  denote  "  that  which  is  clean,  or  fee  from 
defilement,"  and  means,  merely,  that  the  children  are  civilly 
clean  ;  not  spurious,  but  born  of  lawful  marriage,  according  to 
God's  holy  ordinance.  The  holiness  thus  attributed  to  the 
children,  answers  precisely  to  the  sanctification  attributed  to  the 
unbelieving  partner ;  and  this  can,  certainly,  mean  no  more 
than  that  he  is  sanctified  to  the  use  of  the  believing,  or  that  the 
connexion  in  marriage  is  pure  and  lawful. 

It  should  be  particularly  observed,  that  the  children  are  not 
said  to  be  holy  because  the  believing  parent  is  sanctified  ;  but 
because  the  unbelieving  is.  This  circumstance  decidedly  favours 
the  above  interpretation.  The  sanctification  of  the  unbeliever 
can  be  understood  only  in  a  civil,  or  legal  sense.  Consequently, 
that  holiness  which  flows  from  it,  or  is  consequent  upon  it,  can 
only  be  understood  in  the  same  sense,  so  that  the  passage  in  - 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  93" 

terprets  itself.    It  does  not  give  the  most  distant  support  to  the5 
practice  of  infant  baptism. 

Besides  ;  the  argument  from  this  passage  for  that  practice 
may  be  overthrown  on  another  ground,  viz.  if  it  have  any 
force,  it  will  prove  altogether  too  much  :  for  it  would  unavoid- 
ably lead  to  infant  communion.  If  the  children  of  the  believer 
are  to  be  baptized  because  they  are  holy  in  the  ecclesiastical 
sense — because  they  belong  to  the  holy  congregation  of  the 
Lord — they  should  also  be  brought  to  the  Lord's  supper,  as  the 
children  of  the  Jews  were  to  the  passover.  It  is  palpably  in- 
consistent to  baptize  them  upon  the  principle  that  they  are 
holy,  and  then  reject  them  from  the  supper  as  unclean.  It  is 
easy  to  see  that  the  argument,  if  it  proves  any  thing,  proves  too 
much  ;  and  therefore  proves  nothing, 

I  have  now  examined  the  principal  select  passages  employed 
on  the  side  of  Pedobaptism  ;  and  there  are  no  others  of  any 
material  weight.  When  the  arguments  from  these  are  fairly 
refuted,  it  would  be  unavailing  to  bring  forward  any  others ; 
and  I  think  I  may  confidently  say,  they  are  fairly  refuted. 
This  closes  the  examination  of  what  is  contained  in  the  New 
Testament  in  relation  to  the  subject. 

Hence,  if  we  lay  aside  the  prejudice  of  education,  and  sub- 
mit to  the  plain  decisions  of  inspiration,  we  must  admit  that 
the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  is  not  contained  in  any  part  of 
the  New  Testament  records.  There  is  neither  precept  nor  ex- 
ample for  it,  nor  any  thing  else  which  fairly  and  necessarily 
implies  it. 

I  have  carefully  examined  the  commission  for  baptism,  the 
history  of  the  institution,  and  the  practice  of  the  apostles;  the 
constitution  of  the  primitive  churches  ;  and  all  the  select  pas- 
sages which  are  of  any  material  consequence  in  the  case  ;  and  I 
now  deliberately  and  fearlessly  assert,  that  there  is  no  warrant 
for  the  practice  any  where  to  be  found. 

Indeed,  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  are  forced  to  confess  that  it 
is  no  where  to  be  found  expressly,  or  in  so  many  words.     But 
they  infer  it  from  certain  statements  and  principles  ;   and  even 
from  the  silence  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  upon  the  , 
subject,  strange  as  it  may  seem. 

But  I  have  shown  that  we,  not  only,  have  no  explicit  war- 
rant for  the  practice,  (the  very  warrant  required  in  a  positive 
institution,)  but  that  there  is  no  solid  inferential  proof  in  the 
New  Testament  in  its  favour.  On  the  other  hand,  every  thing 
is  against  it.  The  premises  cannot  be  furnished  from  any  part 
of  the  New  Testament,  from  which  the  conclusion  can  be  fair- 
ly and  necessarily  drawn  that  infants  were,  or  should  be  bap- 


91  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

tized.  The  more  this  part  of  the  word  of  God  is  searched: 
with  the  temper  which  becomes  Christians,  the  more  apparent 
it  will  be  that  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  limited  to  believers. 

I  doubt  not  that  many  have  believed  and  still  believe  the 
contrary,  who  are  sincerely  devoted  to  Christ.  At  the  same 
time  I  must  say,  as  a  reasonable  and  dying  man,  that  I  do  not 
believe  that  the  Saviour  or  his  apostles  taught  any  such  thing. 
No  man  can  put  his  finger  upon  the  passage  that  teaches  it. 

It  would  seem  to  me  that  enough  has  been  said  to  convince 
every  impartial  inquirer  that  the  gospel  does  not  teach  this 
doctrine. 

But  if  it  were  true,  is  not  the  New  Testament  manifestly 
the  place  to  look  for  it  ?  Where  should  we  expect  to  find  a 
New  Testament  ordinance,  but  in  the  .New  Testament  records  ? 
Where  else  should  we  expect  to  find  instructions  how  to  attend 
upon,  and  to  whom  to  apply  a  New  Testament  institution — a 
positive  law,  resting  solely  on  the  will  of  Jesus  ?  Surely  it 
must  be  obvious  to  every  sober,  enlightened  mind,  that  this  is 
the  place  to  learn  his  pleasure  upon  the  subject ;  and  yet  we 
find  nothing  but  a  warrant  to  baptize  believers.  We  must, 
therefore,  conclude  from  this  entire  omission  of  the  right  of 
infants,  that  he  did  not  intend  the  ordinance  for  them.  For  to 
infer  a  thing  to  be  our  duty  merely  because  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  entirely  silent  about  it,  is  the  grossest  inconsistency. 
The  principle  would  lead  to  very  shocking  consequences. 

I  know  it  will  be  said  that  the  principle  upon  which  this 
practice  rests  was  previously  settled ;  and,  therefore,  no  new 
instructions  were  needed  ;  and,  hence,  the  silence  of  the  Saviour 
and  his  apostles  is  rather  an  argument  in  its  favour. 

Why  do  not  our  brethren  argue  thus  in  a  similar  case,  viz  : 
that  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  say  the  principle  upon  which 
infant  communion  rests  was  previously  settled  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  passover  ;  and,  therefore,  no  new  instructions  were 
needed  ;  and,  hence,  that  the  entire  silence  ol  the  New  Testa- 
ment respecting  their  right  to  it,  is  rather  an  argument  in  sup- 
port of  it  than  against  it. 

But,  in  this  case,  the  defect  of  such  reasoning  would  be 
easily  seen.  And  if  men  would  but  open  their  eyes,  it  would 
be  seen  also  in  the  other  case. 

But,  as  unnatural  as  it  is,  to  leave  the  New  Testament  and 
repair  to  the  Old  to  learn  the  nature  and  extent  of  a  New 
Testament  positive  law,  I  intend  to  examine  thai  also,  with  a 
view  still  further  to  bring  out  the  truth,  and  to  take  up  the 
stumbling  blocks  which  men,  and  not  the  scriptures,  have 
thrown  in  the  way. 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM.  95 

Bat,  before  we  enter  upon  the  examination  of  that  part  of 
the  word  of  God,  let  me  exhort  you  to  ponder  well  on  what  has 
been  already  advanced.  Give  the  arguments  their  due  weight. 
If  it  be  a  fact,  as  I  have  shown,  that  the  New  Testament  does 
not  teach  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism,  but  simply  the  baptism 
of  believers,  let  this  truth  be  realized,  and  let  it  have  its  due 
weight  in  relation  to  the  whole  subject,  and  no  more. 

Here  inquire,  as  sober,  honest,  reasonable  men,  whether  such 
an  important  concern  would  have  been  altogether  omitted  in 
every  part  of  the  New  Testament  records,  if  it  had  been  the 
pleasure  of  Christ  that  infants  should  be  baptized.  Inquire 
whether  it  be  reasonable  to  maintain  the  doctrine,  because  God 
once  made  a  peculiar  covenant  with  Abraham  and  ordered  that 
his  males  should  be  circumcised  in  their  generations,  when  we 
are  no  where  told  that  baptism  has  come  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision, or  that  circumcision  was  ever  abolished  to  the  natural 
seed  of  Abraham  ;  when  the  apostles  were  perfectly  silent 
upon  this  subject,  under  circumstances  which  imperiously  de- 
manded the  disclosure  of  the  fact  that  baptism  had  succeeded 
to  circumcision,  if  it  were  indeed  true,  as  when  some  were 
making  powerful  efforts  to  impose  circumcision  and  the  Mosa- 
ick  rites  on  the  Gentiles,  and  the  apostles  and  elders,  with  the 
whole  church  of  Jerusalem,  were  convened  to  consider  of  the 
matter.  Inquire  whether  it  be  reasonable  to  suppose,  after  all 
which  Christ  had  said  about  the  nature  of  the  gospel  kingdom, 
and  the  importance  of  adhering  strictly  to  his  instructions  ;  and 
after  all  the  particularity  which  he  observed  in  other  matters, 
that  he  would  have  left  this  concern  entirely  out,  if  it  had  been 
his  pleasure  that  infants  should  be  baptized.  Judge  whether 
this  entire  silence,  under  all  the  circumstances,  amounts  to  a 
warrant  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  or  whether  it  amounts  to  a 
plain  prohibition. 

I  do  not  say  these  things  to  prejudice  you  against  any  light 
which  may  yet  be  reflected  upon  the  subject,  but  to  prepare 
you  to  judge  of  things  as  they  are. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTiSM.  97 


CHAPTER  XL 

The  Nature  of  Positive  Institutions  illustrated  and  established. 

The  main  argument  for  the  baptism  of  infants  being  founded 
on  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham,  and  professed- 
ly exhibiting  no  other  kind  of  proof  than  that  which  is  derived 
from  inference  and  analogy,  it  becomes  a  question  of  very  seri- 
ous importance,  whether  inferential  proof  is  admissible  in  the 
case  of  a  positive  institution  ;  whether  we  are  under  the  neces- 
sity, or  are  at  liberty  to  infer  our  duty  in  regard  to  one  positive 
institution,  from  the  duty  enjoined  in  another. 

This,  then,  is  a  proper  place  to  examine  the  nature  of  posi- 
tive institutions. 

There  is  manifestly  a  material  difference  between  moral  pre- 
cepts and  those  which  are  positive.  A  few  testimonies  from 
-eminent  Pedobaptist  authors  may  be  here  pertinently  introduc- 
ed. I  shall  insert  them  as  they  are  quoted  in  Rev.  Mr.  Frey's 
Essays  on  Baptism.  Bishop  Butler  says :  "  Moral  precepts  are 
precepts,  the  reason  of  which  we  see ;  positive  precepts  are 
precepts,  the  reason  of  which  we  do  not  see.  Moral  duties 
arise  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case  itself,  prior  to  external  com- 
mand ;  positive  duties  do  not  arise  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case, 
but  from  external  command  ;  nor  would  they  be  duties  at  all, 
were  it  nol^for  such  command,  received  from  him  whose  crea- 
tures and  subjects  we  are." 

President  Edwards  says :  "  Positive  precepts  are  the  greatest 
and  most  proper  trial  of  our  obedience  ;  because  in  them  the 
mere  authority  and  will  of  the  legislator  is  the  sole  ground  of  the 
obligation,  and  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  things  themselves  ; 
and,  therefore,  they  are  the  greatest  trial  of  any  person's  respect 
to  that  authority  and  will." 

And  Dr.  Sherlock  says  :  "  What  is  matter  of  institution  de- 
pends wholly  upon  the  divine  will  and  pleasure ;  and  though 
all  men  will  grant  that  God  and  Christ  have  great  reason  for 
their  institutions,  yet  it  is  not  the  reason,  but  the  authority  which 
makes  the  institution.  Though  we  do  not  understand  the  rea- 
sons of  the  institution,  if  we  have  the  command  we  must  obev  ; 

9 


98  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

and  though  we  could  fancy  a  great  many  reasons  why  there 
should  be  such  an  institution,  if  no  such  institution  appear,  we 
are  free,  and  ought  not  to  believe  there  is  such  an  institution  be- 
cause we  think  there  are  reasons  assigned  why  it  should  be." 

The  distinction  noted  by  these  authors  between  moral  and 
positive  precepts,  is  manifestly  correct  and  important.  It  is  plain 
to  every  observing  mind.  Therefore,  from  the  very  nature  of 
positive  institutions,  the  aforesaid  questions  must  be  answered 
in  the  negative.  Inference  and  analogy,  though  allowed  in  the 
case  of  a  moral  duty,  are  not  in  the  case  of  a  positive  law.  For 
the  very  nature  of  a  positive  law  implies  that  it  is  not  based 
upon  any  previous  fitness  in  the  thing  itself,  but  solely  on  the 
pleasure  of  the  lawgiver.  Heuce  this  pleasure  must  be  signi- 
fied in  the  law  itself.  And  we  have  no  right  to  supply  any  de- 
ficiency which  we  may  think  we  discover,  by  comparing  it 
with  a  previous  positive  institution,  and  reasoning  therefrom ; 
but  we  are  expressly  limited  in  our  interpretation  to  the  law 
itself.     The  very  enactment  itself  must  contain  the  rule  of  duty. 

This  principle  is  the  one  which  all  Protestants  proceed  upon 
when  contending  with  the  Roman  Catholicks,  in  regard  to 
their  peculiar  rites  and  prerogatives.  They  very  justly  and  for- 
cibly plead,  that  nothing  short  of  "  an  explicit  grant,  a  positive 
command,  or  a  plain  example  in  the  New  Testament,  can  prove 
their  divine  origin. 

The  Non-Conformists  also  proceed  upon  the  same  principle 
in  their  controversy  with  the  Episcopalians  in  regard  to  the  pe- 
culiar claims  of  their  Bishops,  and  the  peculiar  usages  of  their 
church.  They  say,  u  produce  your  warrant  for  this,  that,  and 
the  other,  from  our  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice — a  divine  pre- 
cept,  or  an  apostolick  example,  relating  to  the  point  in  dispute." 
"Now,  if  this  ground,  which  is  taken  with  Papists  and  Epis- 
copalians, be  correct  and  scriptural,  it  ought  to  be  taken  with 
Pedobaptists.  Why  should  they,  themselves,  takfc  it  in  the 
other  cases,  and  abandon  it  in  this  ?  vSurely,  we  have  as  good 
a  right  to  demand  a  divine  precept,  or  &n  apostolick  example, 
for  infant  baptism,  as  Protestants  in  general,  and  Non-Con- 
formists in  particular,  have  to  demand  the  one  or  the  other,  of 
the  Papists  and  Episcopalians,  for  their  peculiar  opinions  and 
practices.  We  do  but  take  the  very  ground  occupied  by  them 
when  we  insist  that  the  warrant  for  infant  baptism,  if  it  be  a 
dutv,  must  be  contained  in  the  institution  for  baptism,  as  deli- 
vered by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  or  in  some  plain  apostolick 
example.  In  the  controversy  with  the  abovementioned  orders, 
all  can  see  the  inconsistency  and  danger  of  reasoning  by  way 
of  inference  and  analogy  in  regard  to  the  subject  of  positive  in- 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  99 

stitutions ;  and  yet  the  Pedobaptists  build  the  whole  super- 
structure of  infant  baptism  upon  this  very  kind  of  reasoning. 
They  have  confessedly  nothing  better.  It  is  evident,  there- 
fore, that  they  are  inconsistent  with  themselves. 

In  the  one  case,  they  unquestionably  reason  correctly,  but 
in  the  other  incorrectly  ;  and  here  lies  the  inconsistency  com- 
plained of.  Let  the  principles  adopted  and  acted  upon  in  rela- 
tion to  positive  institutions  in  the  abovementioned  cases,  be 
adopted  and  acted  upon  in  this  ;  and  the  plea  that  we  have  a 
divine  warraut  for  infant  baptism  would  be  for  ever  abandon- 
ed. We  should  no  longer  be  referred  to  the  Abrahamick  cove- 
nant and  circumcision  for  the  due  interpretation  of  our  Saviour's 
command  for  Christian  baptism,  but  be  limited  by  the  command 
itself,  which,  as  I  have  abundantly  shown,  contains  merely  a 
warrant  tor  the  baptism  of  believers. 

I  might,  therefore,  justly  set  aside  all  which  can  be  inferred 
from  the  Abrahamick  covenant,  and  the  practice  of  circumcis- 
ion, or  from  any  thing  else  pertaining  to  the  Old  Testament 
economy,  as  not  being  the  kind  of  proof  required  in  the  pre- 
sent controversy  ;  baptism  being  a  positive  institution  of  the  New 
Testament. 

And  in  doing  this,  I  should  not  only  take  good  and  reasona- 
ble ground  in  itself,  but  I  should  take  the  very  ground  which  Pe- 
dobaptists themselves  take  in  defending  the  Protestant  princi- 
ples in  general  against  the  claims  of  Roman  Catholicks,  and  the 
principles  of  Dissenters  in  particular  against  the  claims  of  Epis- 
copalians. 

But  as  my  object  is  to  enlighten  as  far  as  possible,  I  will  meet 
the  aforesaid  argument  for  infant  baptism  on  other  ground,  i.  e. 
I  shall  show,  that  provided  the  kind  of  proof  which  is  plead 
for  and  attempted  to  be  introduced  by  Pedobaptists  in  relation 
to  this  controversy  were  admitted  to  be  sufficient,  it  does  not  ex- 
ist. There  are  no  premises,  or  data,  contained  in  the  Abraha- 
mick covenant,  or  in  any  part  of  the  Old  Testament  scrip- 
tures, from  which  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  can  be  fairly 
and  conclusively  inferred;  or  be  made  out  upon  the  strict  princi- 
ples of  analogy.  , 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  10 1 


CHAPTER  XII. 

The  Abrahamick  covenant,  though  a  gracious  covenant,  or  a  dis- 
pensation of  the  covenant  of  grace,  yet  shown  to  be  distinct 
from  the  covenant  of  grace  itself. 

It  is  generally  maintained  by  Pedobaptists,  that  the  covenant 
which  God  made  with  Abraham,  and  ratified  by  circumcision, 
was  the  « ovenant  of  grace.  But  on  careful  examination,  this 
notion  will  be  found  to  be  incorrect. 

It  may  be  properly  termed  a  covenant  of  grace,  or  a  dispen- 
sation of  the  covenant  of  grace,  but  not  the  covenant  of  grace 
itself. 

When  we  speak  properly  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  we  are 
restricted  by  the  phrase  to  one  definite  engagement  or  transaction, 
containing  the  method  of  salvation  by  grace  through  a  Media- 
tor in  contradistinction  to  the  covenant  of  works.  The  definite 
article  which  is  prefixed,  limits  the  idea  to  one  and  the  same  co- 
venant. 

But  when  we  speak  of  a  covenant  of  grace,  we  are  referred 
to  one  gracious  engagement,  or  stipulation,  in  distinction  from 
certain  other  engagements  equally  founded  in  grace.  The  in- 
definite article  which  is  prefixed,  implies  that  there  are  more  co- 
venants of  grace  than  one,  or  that  God  has  entered  into  various 
distinct  engagements  with  men  in  their  fallen  state,  or  with 
some  portion  of  them,  which  engagements,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  must  be  wholly  of  grace  or  unmerited  fa- 
vour. 

And  when  we  speak  of  a  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  ' 
grace,  the  definite  and  proper  meaning  is  a  particular  mode  or 
method  of  dispensing  the  blessings  of  that  covenant.  This 
manner  of  expression  also  implies  that  there  are  different  modes 
of  dispensing  the  blessings  of  this  covenant,  all  tending  to  the 
same  great  and  glorious  result. 

These  distinctions  are  of  high  importance. 

If  God  has,  in  fact,  entered  into  various  distinct  covenants  of 
grace  with  men,  or  that  there  have  been  various  modes  or  wavs 

9* 


102  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

of  dispensing  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace  adopted, 
it  ought  to  be  distinctly  observed.  All  these  covenants,  or  dis- 
pensations, are  based  upon  the  one  proper  covenant  of  grace  ; 
yet  they  have  distinctive  characteristicks,  and  ought  not  to  be 
confounded  either  with  one  another,  or  with  that  original 
covenant  on  which  they  are  all  based. 

It  is  upon  the  principle  now  stated  that  I  call  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham  a  covenant  of  grace,  or  a  dispensation  of 
the  covenant  of  grace  ;  but  not  the  covenant  of  grace  itself.  If 
this  distinction  can  be  sustained,  it  will  reflect  great  light 
upon  the  present  question — yea,  it  will  be  a  key  to  the  whole 
subject. 

While  the  Pedobaptists  insist  that  the  covenant  of  which  cir- 
cumcision was  the  appointed  token  was  the  covenant  of  grace, 
the  Baptists  insist  that  it  was  not;  but  merely  a  covenant  of  pro- 
perty— a  temporal  covenant,  or  a  covenant  of  works.  At  the 
same  time  they  admit  that  the  covenant  of  grace  was  also  made 
with  Abraham,  but  hold  that  it  was  altogether  distinct  from 
the  covenant  of  circumcision.     Herein  they  manifestly  err. 

For  it  is  capable  of  the  clearest  proof,  that  God  made  but  one 
covenant  with  that  patriarch,  although  it  was  exhibited,  more 
or  less  clearly,,  at  different  times,  or  by  distinct  parts  ;  and  al- 
though it  contained  both  temporal  and  spiritual  blessings,  which 
covenant  was  finally  sealed  or  ratified  by  circumcision. 

God  indeed  said,  "  My  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh  j" 
yet  it  is  evident  that  it  was  not  a  covenant  by  itself,  but  it  was 
a  token  of  the  covenant.  It  could  not  be  both  the  covenant  and 
the  token,  because  this  would  be  making  it  a  token  of  itself, 
i.  e.  a  token  of  a  token,,  which  would  be  perfect  nonsense. 

Much,  it  is  conceived,  is  lost  to  the  cause  of  believers'  bap- 
tism, by  an  attempt  to  make  out  that  two  distinct  covenants 
were  made  with  Abraham,  and  that  circumcision  was  not  a  seal 
of  what  is  termed  the  spiritual  covenant,  but  only  of  what  is 
termed  the  carnal  or  temporal ;  because  the  notion  is  so  evi- 
dently contrary  to  fact 

Whatever  the  transaction  with  Abraham  implied,  it  is  mani- 
fest that  God  made  but  one  covenant  with  him — that  all  the  pro- 
mises made  at  different  times  prior  to-  the  date  of  the  transaction 
recorded  in  the  xvii.  chapter  of  Genesis,  were  then  condensed 
and  put  into  the  form  of  a  covenant,  and  solemnly  confirmed  by 
the  rite  of  circumcision. 

Nevertheless,  we  shall  find,  on  examination,  that  this  was 
neither  a  mere  temporal  or  carnal  covenant,  or  a  covenant  of 
works,  nor  the  covenant  of  grace  itself,  but  simply  a  peculiar  gra- 
inus  covenant  founded  on  that  covenant,  or  a  mere  dispensatio? 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  10^ 

of  the  covenant  of  grace,  which  might  afterwards  be  varied,  and 
another  dispensation,  or  other  dispensations  thereof,  might  ensue. 

To  determine  the  justness  of  this  distinction,  it  will  be  ne- 
cessary to  obtain  a  correct  definition  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

The  ideas  of  many  appear  to  be  loose  and  indistinct  upon  this 
subject.  They  are  accustomed  to  speak  ot  the  covenant  of 
grace,  as  though  it  were  one  definite  engagement,  and  yet  make 
it  mean  one  thing  at  one  time,  and  another  at  another.  This  is 
evidently  not  a  proper  manner  of  treating  the  subject. 

We  ought  to  fix  upon  some  one  definite  transaction,  engage- 
ment, or  promise,  as  being  that  covenant ;  and  then,  when  we 
talk  of  the  covenant  ol  grace,  constantly  refer  thereto. 

The  covenant  of  grace  will  be  found,  upon  due  examination, 
to  be  the  same  as  the  covenant  of  redemption,  of  which  Presi- 
dent Dwight  gives,  in  his  System  of  Theology,  the  following 
definition,  viz.  u  God  the  Father  entered  into  a  covenant  with 
Christ,  in  which  he  promised  him,  on  condition  that  he  should 
become  a  propitiation  and  intercessor  for  sinners,  as  a  reward  of 
his  labours  and  sufferings,  the  future  possession  of  a  church, 
which,  under  his  government,  should  be  glorious  and  happy  for 
ever."  This  definition,  with  one  addition,  viz.  that  the  sub- 
jects respected  in  this  covenant  should  become  interested  there- 
in by  faith,  is  a  very  proper  definition  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 
Dr.  Hopkins,  in  his  System  of  Divinity,  allows  that  "  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  in  the  highest  sense,  is  the  same  as  the  covenant 
of  redemption,"  though  he  undertakes  to  distinguish  it  there- 
from, and  to  make  out  that  it  is  made  directly  with  men  them- 
selves in  time.  This  is  plainly  making  it  a  different  thing  from 
itself,  which  is  absurd.  Two  covenants  cannot  be  the  same,  and 
yet  distinct.  Indeed  two  or  more  covenants  may  be  similar  in 
certain  respects,  but  they  cannot  be  different  covenants  at  diffe- 
rent periods,  or  under  different  circumstances,  and  yet  the  same 
covenant.  The  covenants  which  God  has  made  with  men  in 
their  fallen  state,  are  similar  in  certain  respects  to  the  covenant 
made  with  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  yet  they 
are  manifestly  distinct:  for  one  of  the  parties  is  distinct  in 
the  one  case  from  what  it  is  in  the  other.  To  make  a  covenant 
with  Christ  respecting  men,  is  obviously  a  different  thing  from 
making  one  directly  with  men  themselves.  We  cannot,  there- 
fore, with  consistency,  make  a  distinction  between  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  and  the  covenant  of  redemption,  and  yet  say  that 
the  former  is  the  same  as  the  latter  in  its  highest  sense.  If  the 
covenant  of  grace,  in  its  highest  sense,  be  the  same  as  the  cove- 
nant of  redemption,  then  we  ought  ever  to  consider  it  the  same. 


104  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

and  to  regard  the  covenants  made  with  us  as  only  dispensations 
thereof,  or  as  gracious  covenants  founded  thereon. 

The  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  allows  the  sameness 
of  the  covenant  of  grace  and  the  covenant  of  redemption,  though 
many  Presbyterians  distinguish  between  them. 

Now,  it  is  evidently  of  great  importance  to  determine  whe- 
ther these  covenants  are  the  same  or  not ;  for  the  one  or  the 
other  must  be  the  fact.  They  cannot  be  the  same  and  yet  dis* 
tinct ;  though  they  may  be  distinct,  and  yet  similar  in  certain 
respects,  but  not  in  all. 

If  these  covenants  be  the  same,  then  it  will  follow  that  the 
covenant  of  grace  was  not  made  with  Abraham  or  with  any  other 
man,  or  with  men  collectively,  but  with  Christ  as  the  Redeem- 
er and  Representative  of  his  elect  people  in  the  ages  of  eterni- 
ty, and  consisted  in  the  promise  of  the  Father  to  give  him  a 
seed  from  among  men,  which  should  in  due  time  be  effectually 
called,  justified  by  faith,  and  glorified.  The  scriptures  abun- 
dantly teach  that  there  was  such  a  compact,  or  engagement,  be- 
tween the  Father  and  the  Son,  before  the  world  began.  And  if 
this  be  the  covenant  of  grace  in  the  true  and  proper  sense,  then 
the  several  promises  which  God  has  at  different  times  made  to 
men,  or  the  different  engagements  which  he  has  entered  into 
with  them,  or  any  individual  or  body  of  them,  are  only  dispen- 
sations of  this  covenant,  or  covenants  of  grace  founded  thereon, 
and  tending  to  the  same  glorious  end.  It  would  not  be  proper 
to  call  either  the  covenant  of  grace,  because  by  this  appellation, 
a  different  transaction  is  referred  to — one  that  took  place  before 
men  existed. 

It  is  perfectly  manifest  that  God  has  made  various  covenants 
with  men  in  their  fallen  state,  or  with  some  individual,  or  por- 
tion of  them  ;  and  these,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  must 
be  gracious  covenants,  whether  they  contain  temporal  or  spirit- 
ual blessings,  or  both.  He  cannot  treat  favourably  with  sinners 
upon  any  other  footing  than  that  of  grace.  Yet  ihese  all  have 
distinctive  marks,  and  are  as  capable  of  being  distinguished 
from  the  covenant  of  grace  itself  as  any  one  deed  whatever  is 
capaple  of  being  distinguished  from  another. 

Should  we  disallow  the  sameness  or  identity  of  the  covenant 
of  grace  and  the  covenant  of  redemption,  and  say  that  the 
former  was  not  made  with  Chiist,  but  with  men  themselves,  or 
with  some  individual,  or  portion  of  mankind,  we  shall  be  involv- 
ed in  difficulty  in  regard  to  fixing  upon  the  proper  instrument  and 
giving  it  ^proper  definition. 

If  we  say  that  the  covenant  of  grace  is  the  general  promise  of 
salvation  to  mankind  upon  condition  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  it 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  105 

may  be  objected  that  this  promise  contains  nothing  in  itself  to 
secure  the  existence  of  faith  and  salvation,  to  any  extent,  and 
consequently,  nothing  to  ensure  the  continuance  of  the  church. 
Whereas  the  covenant  of  grace  being  the  foundation  of  the 
church,  must  naturally  be  supposed  to  contain  effectual  provis- 
ion for  her  continuance  and  ultimate  triumph.  But  every  one 
can  see  that  a  merely  conditional  promise,  or  covenant,  does  not 
contain  this  provision. 

Besides,  so  far  as  any  argument  can  be  drawn  from  this  view 
of  the  covenant  for  the  baptism  of  the  children  of  believers,  it  is 
equally  in  favour  of  the  baptism  of  the  children  of  unbelievers  ; 
yea,  of  all  classes  of  sinners,  whatever  be  their  age  or  charac- 
ter ;  for  this  conditional  promise  is  equally  to  them  all.  Christ 
hath  tasted  death  for  every  man  ;  and  he  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved  ;  yea,  it  is  said,  ll  Whosoever  shall  call 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved ;"  and  "  whosoever 
will,  let  him  come,  and  take  of  the  water  of  life  freely."  It 
would  be  absurd  to  limit  baptism,  as  based  upon  this  covenant- 
as  now  exhibited,  to  the  children  of  believers,  when  the  chil- 
dren of  unbelievers,  yea,  all  unbelievers  whatever,  have  the  same 
conditional  promise  of  salvation  made  to  them. 

Many  of  those  who  consider  the  covenant  of  grace  distinct 
from  that  of  redemption,  regard  it  as  merely  conditional.  The 
proper  definition  of  it,  then,  would  be  the  promise  of  God  to 
save  sinners  through  faith  in  Christ.  Here,,  therefore,  is  nothr 
ing  peculiar  to  one  class  of  children,  or  to  one  class  of  adult 
sinners.  Whoever  believes  shall  be  saved.  Hence  the  argu- 
ment for  infant  baptism  would  be  equally  an  argument  for  indis- 
criminate baptism.  And  for  aught  the  covenant  contains,  sin- 
ners may,  with  one  consent,  reject  the  gospel,  and  the  church 
run  out. 

And,  if  we  should  extend  the  promise  so  as  to  make  it  abso^ 
lute  as  it  respects  the  children  of  believers.,  or  some  of  them, 
on  condition  of  parental  faithfulness,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  doe* 
not  secure  this  faithfulness,  and  so  the  blessing  may  not  descend. 
Or  if  one  parent  is  faithful,  and  consequently  inherits  the  bless- 
ing for  his  immediate  seed,  they  may  not  be  faithful  in  their 
turn,  and.  so  the  succession  of  pious  men  may  be  broken.  Those 
who  hold  that  there  is  a  promise  to  parents  respecting  their 
children,  consider  it  a  different  thing  to  possess  faith  so  as  to 
secure  one's  own  salvation,  from  what  it  is  to  maintain  that 
faithfulness  towards  children  which  will  secure  the  transmis- 
sion of  the  blessing  to  them.  So  that  the  covenant,  even  as 
now  construed  and  extended,  will  not  guaranty  the  continued  ex* 


106 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


istence  of  a  seed  of  believers  on  earth.  For  this,  upon  this  plan? 
we  must  look  somewhere  else  than  to  the  covenant  of  grace- 

If  we  reject  this  conditional  view  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
and  say  that  it  contains  an  absolute  promise  that  those  whom  it 
respects  shall  become  believers  and  inherit  salvation,  maintain- 
ing, at  the  same  time,  that  it  is  distinct  from  the  covenant  of 
redemption,  and  made  with  men,  or  with  some  one,  or  more,  of 
mankind;  then,  it  may  be  asked,  with  whom  was  it  made  ? 
and  where  shall  we  rind  it  in  this  simple  form  ?  Was  it  first 
made  with  Abraham  ?  or  did  it  exist  before  ?  If  it  was  not  made 
before  the  engagement  with  Abraham,  then  how  were  those 
saved  that  existed  previously  ?  They  could  not  have  been  sav- 
ed by  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  by  virtue  of  its  piovisions  be- 
fore it  existed  Besides,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  the  world  con- 
tinued for  about  two  thousand  years,  as  it  must  have  done,  on 
this  supposition,  without  any  covenant  of  grace  being  entered, 
into. 

If,  then,  this  covenant  was  made  before  the  time  of  Abra- 
ham, the  question  returns,  with  whom  ?  Was  it  made  with 
Adam,  or  with  him  and  Eve  together,  directly  after  the  fall  ? 
Then  it  was  manifestly  a  distinct  thing  from  the  covenant  made 
with  Abraham,  though  there  was  a  similarity  in  one  important 
respect.  Tiie  promise  to  our  first  parents  is  in  these  words,  in- 
cluded in  the  sentence  prouounced  upon  Satan  :  "  And  I  will 
put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed 
and  her  seed :  it  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise 
his  heel."  This  passage  contains  the  promise  of  a  Saviour, 
and  an  implied  promise  of  a  pious  seed  ;  and  the  whole  is  put 
in  an  absolute  form  ;  but  it  does  not  determine  from  what 
branch  of  Adam's  family  this  Saviour  should  come,  nor  in  what 
particular  line  the  pious  seed  should  be  called.  And  the  cove- 
nant as  here  made  contains  but  these  two  items. 

But  on  examination,  the  covenant  with  Abraham  will  be 
found  to  contain  several  additional  articles  and  peculiarities. 
This  is  recorded  Genesis,  xvii.  1—14.  "  And  when  Abram 
was  ninety  years  old  and  nine,  the  Lord  appeared  unto  Abram 
and  said,  I  am  the  Almighty  God  ;  walk  before  me,  and  be  thou 
perfect.  And  I  will  make  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee, 
and  will  multiply  thee  exceedingly.  And  Abram  fell  on  his 
face,  and  God  talked  with  him,  saying :  as  for  me,  behold,  my 
covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  many  na- 
tions. Neither  shall  thy  name  any  more  be  called  Abram,  but 
thy  name  shall  be  called  Abraham ;  for  a  father  of  many  na- 
tions have  I  made  thee.  And  I  will  make  thee  exceeding  fruit- 
ful3  and  I  will  make  nations  of  thee,  and  kings  shall  come  out 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  107 

of  thee.  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  ever- 
lasting covenant ;  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  all 
the  land  of  Canaan  for  an  everlasting  possession,  and  I  will  be 
their  God.  And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  thou  shalt  keep  my 
covenant  therefore,  thou,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  gene- 
rations. This  is  my  covenant  which  ye  shall  keep,  between 
me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  ;  every  man  child  among 
you  shall  be  circumcised.  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh 
of  your  foreskin ;  and  it  shall  b<*  a  token  of  the  covenant  be- 
twixt me  and  you.  And  he  that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be  cir- 
cumcised among  you,  every  man  child  in  your  generations,  he 
that  is  born  in  the  house,  and  he  that  is  bought  with  money  of 
any  stranger,  which  is  not  of  thy  seed.  He  that  is  born  in  thy 
house,  and  he  that  is  bought  with  thy  money,  must  needs  be 
circumcised.  And  my  covenant  shall  be  iu  your  flesh  for  an 
everlasting  covenant.  And  the  uncircumcised  man  child  whose 
flesh  of  his  foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be  cut 
off  from  his  people  ;  he  hath  broken  my  covenant." 

The  peculiarities  of  this  covenant,  diS  here  expressed,  and  pre- 
viously, are  the  following,  viz. 

1 .  A  promise  that  the  Messiah  should  be  born  of  Abraham's 
seed.  "  Thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  many  nations."  "  In  thy 
seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  Here  was 
something  in  addition  to  what  was  promised  in  the  before-cited 
covenant  with  our  first  parents,  viz  that  the  Messiah  who  was 
to  come  should  be  a  descendant  of  Abraham.  Had  he  descend- 
ed from  Lot,  or  Abimelech,  it  would  have  beer*  a  fulfilment  of 
the  promise  to  our  first  parents,  but  it  would  not  have  been  a 
fulfilment  of  the  promise  to  Abraham.  Here,  therefore,  was 
obviously  something  peculiar.  And  this  promise  that  Christ 
should  be  Abraham's  seed  was  a  prominent  item  of  this  cove- 
nant. 

2.  God  promised  in  this  covenant  that  Abraham  should  be 
"  multiplied  exceedingly,"  which  is  doubtless  to  be  taken  in  a 
twofold  sense,  literally  and  spiritually— i.  e.  he  should  become 
a  great  and  mighty  nation  in  the  primary  and  literal  sense  of  the 
word — yea,  the  actual  father  of  many  nations ;  and  also  that 
there  should  be  a  vast  multitude  of  believers  like  himself  called 
from  among  his  natural  posterity,  and  from  among  the  Gentiles. 
There  was  also  something  peculiar  and  very  prominent  in  this 
item.  The  foregoing  promise  to  our  first  parents  did  indeed  im- 
ply the  continuance  of  a  pious  seed  among  men,  which  would 
ultimately  be  numerous.  But  it  did  not  engage  a  numerous  seed 


108  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

to  Abraham,  and  likewise  a  multitude  of  pious  descendants. 
That  covenant  might  have  been  fulfilled,  provided  Abraham  had 
had  no  more  seed  than  common — yea,  though  he  had  died  child- 
less. But  in  that  case,  the  covenant  under  consideration  would 
not  have  been  fulfilled.  In  order  for  this  to  be  carried  into  effect, 
he  himself  must  have  a  numerous  seed,  and  multitudes  of  them 
must  be  converted  and  saved  ;  and  in  order  to  this,  not  only 
Ishmael  must  be  born  of  Hagar,  but  Isaac  must  be  born  of 
Sarah,  after  she  was  past  age,  which  was  a  real  miracle.  God 
not  only  did  not  promise  this  in  the  covenant  with  our  first  pa- 
rents, but  he  does  not  promise  it  to  ordinary  believers. 

3.  God  promised  to  Abraham  that  "  kings  should  come  out 
of  him,"  which  all  must  see  was  a  peculiar  item. 

4.  God  further  promised  Abraham  that  he  would  continue  a 
pious  seed  among  his  posterity  in  their  successive  generations, 
particularly  in  that  branch  of  his  family  which  should  descend 
from  Isaac.  "  And  I  will,"  said  he,  "  establish  my  covenant 
between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  genera- 
tions, for  an  everlasting  covenant."  Again :  "  In  Isaac  shall 
thy  seed  be  called."  This  was  manifestly  peculiar.  Such  a 
thing  had  not  been  promised  to  any  particular  parent  before ; 
nor  has  it  been  promised  to  any  one  since,  with  the  exception  of 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  with  whom  the  covenant  was  renewed  in  most 
respects. 

5.  God  moreover  promised  that  Abraham  and  his  posterity  in 
the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  should  have  ".all  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan for  an  everlasting  possession."  This  also  was  a  peculiar 
Mid  prominent  part  of  the  covenant.  No  one  can  doubt  its  be- 
ing peculiar  to  Abraham  and  his  natural  seed,  unless  in  the  face 
of  the  clearest  evidence  they  will  come  forward  and  maintain 
that  the  Gentiles  have  always  had  as  good  a  right  to  the  land  of 
Canaan  as  the  Jews ;  and  that  God  might  have  fulfilled  his  co- 
venant with  Abraham,  if  he  had  given  his  posterity  the  land 
of  Ethiopia,  or  any  other  country  instead  thereof. 

The  several  items  now  enumerated,  I  say,  were  peculiar  to 
Abraham  and  his  natural  seed,  and  serve  to  distinguish  the  co- 
venant made  with  him  from  that  made  with  our  first  parents, 
and  from  any  one  subsequently  made.  God  has  not  made  such 
a  covenant  as  this  with  Gentile  believers,  nor  with  believers  in 
common  among  the  Jews. 

It  is  true  there  was  one  thing  in  this  covenant  in  common 
with  every  other  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  which 
belongs  to  all  believers,  viz.  the  blessing  of  a  free  justification 
by  faith  in  Christ. 

But  take  the  covenant  as  a  ivhole,  and  it  was  peculiar to  Abm- 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  109 

ham  and  his  natural  seed.  It  did  not  belong  to  the  nations  in 
common,  or  to  believers  in  common  among  all  nations;  but  to 
that  singular  and  wonderful  people,  which  God,  for  wise  reasons, 
separated  from  all  others. 

It  is  hence  still  further  manifest,  that  this  covenant  was  not 
the  covenant  of  grace  itself,  but  only  a  dispensation  thereof, 
or  a  peculiar  gracious  covenant  founded  thereon. 

It  appears  to  be  conceded  by  Pedobaptists,  that  there  were 
peculiarities  belonging  to  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  although 
it  be  considered  as  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  that  it  is  not* 
made  with  other  believers  in  the  same  form,  or  to  the  same  ex- 
tent. Indeed,  this  is  too  obvious  to  be  denied.  But  these  pe- 
culiar items  are  called  appendages  of  the  covenant  of  grace  ; 
i.  e.  something  added  or  annexed  to  it. 

But  this  notion  is  manifestly  without  a  foundation.  They 
were  not  appendages  of  the  Abrahamick  covenant,  but  compo- 
nent and  essential  parts  of  it,  as  much  so  as  any  item  of  any  co- 
venant, will  or  deed,  whatever,  belongs  to  the  instrument  itself \ 
and  distinguishes  it  from  all  other  covenants,  wills  or  deeds.  It 
must  be  perfectly  obvious  to  every  unbiassed  mind  that  will 
look  at  the  subject,  that  each  of  these  articles  was  a  covenanted 
blessing,  and  not  a  mere  appendage  of  the  covenant.  Each  one 
entered  into  the  very  body  of  the  covenant.  All  the  blessings 
contained  therein  were  not  equally  important ;  but  they  were 
all  essential  parts  of  it,  and  were  combined  to  render  it  one 
complete  whole,  or  one  specifick  deed,  or  compact.  And  the  pe- 
culiar items  of  this  covenant  were  as  much  secured  to  Abra- 
ham by  promise,  and  ratified  by  circumcision,  as  those  articles 
were  which  are  common  to  all  believers. 

Therefore,  seeing  the  covenant,  taken  as  a  whole,  was  pecu- 
liar to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  or  posterity,  so  circumcision,  which 
belonged  to  it  as  a  whole,  and  not  to  one  part  of  it  in  distinction 
from  the  rest,  was  peculiar  to  him  and  his  seed,  and  was  never  de- 
signed for  the  Gentiles,  except  they  were  bought  with  Jewish 
money,  or  proselyted  so  as  to  become  one  nation  with  them. 

This  covenant,  therefore,  wheu  properly  analyzed  and  de- 
fined, does  not  contain  any  premises  from  which  the  baptism  of 
believers  can  be  justly  inferred,  inasmuch  as  Abraham's  case 
was  peculiar,  and  the  same  covenant  is  not  made  with  other 
believers,  especially  with  Gentile  believers ;  and  inasmuch  as 
baptism,  provided  it  be  designed  to  answer  any  of  the  ends  of 
circumcision,  cannot  be  pretended  to  answer  all  of  them  ;  nor 
can  it  be  considered  as  a  seal  of  the  same  covenant.  But  it  is 
•altogether  a  new  rite,  appointed  under  a  new  and  different  dis- 
pensation of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

10 


110  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Although  it  is  manifest,  as  I  have  shown,  that  circumcision  is 
of  perpetual  obligation  to  the  Jews,  it  will  not  follow  from  any 
thing  contained  in  the  covenant  transaction  with  Abraham,  that 
it  must  be  continued  in  the  church  at  large,  or  something  else 
as  a  substitute,  answering  the  same  ends  and  applied  to  the  same 
subjects.  When  the  peculiar  nature  of  that  covenant,  and  the 
peculiar  use  and  design  of  circumcision  are  considered,  and 
especially  when  we  learn  from  the  decision  of  the  apostles  at 
Jerusalem,  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  recorded 
in  the  xv.  chapter  of  Acts,  that  circumcision  was  not  to  be  im- 
posed on  the  Gentiles,  and  indeed,  was  never  intended  for  them 
as  Gentiles,  or  in  their  separate  national  capacity,  and  therefore, 
was  in  no  seuse  obligatory  upon  them  ;  (to  say  nothing  here  of 
the  nature  of  a  positive  institution,)  it  is  wholly  unnatural  and 
arbitrary  to  infer  the  duty  of  baptism  to  any  extent,  especially 
to  infer  the  duty  of  baptizing  infants,  not  only  of  the  male  sex, 
but  of  the  female. 

I  freely  admit,  as  before  observed,  that  God  made  but  one  co- 
venant with  Abraham,  which  included  all  the  promises  made 
to  him  at  different  times,  and  that  circumcision  was  a  token  01 
seal  of  this  covenant. 

At  the  same  time,  it  must  be  particularly  noticed  that  I  con- 
sider the  covenant,  as  a  whole,  as  God  actually  made  it,  and  cir- 
cumcision as  belonging  to  it  as  a  whole,  and  not  merely  to  a 
part  of  it ;  and  hence,  as  a  whole,  or  as  a  complete  covenant,  com- 
pact, or  deed,  I  say  it  belonged  to  him  and  his  posterity,  and  not 
to  mankind  in  common,  or  to  believers  in  common.  And  this 
view  of  it  is  manifestly  correct,  notwithstanding  one  or  two  of 
the  items  belong  equally  to  Jews  and  Gentiles;  and  therefore 
we  cannot  duly  infer  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism,  not  even 
the  right  of  male  infants. 

The  difference  which  exists  between  the  new  dispensation 
under  which  we  live,  or  the  new  covenant,  as  it  is  called,  and 
the  .A  brahamick,  requires  a  different  application  of  baptism  ap- 
pointed therein  from  that  of  circumcision. 

Indeed,  we  cannot  infer  the  duty  of  baptism  at  all  from  the 
covenant  with  xYbraham  and  the  practice  of  circumcision  ;  much 
less  the  baptism  of  both  males  and  females.  Nor  can  we  in- 
fer this  from  any  other  transaction  or  rite  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

Should  we  even  take  a  different  view  of  the  covenant  which 
God  made  with  Abraham  from  that  which  I  have  given,  and  ad- 
mit that  it  was  the  covenant  of  grace  itself,  and  consequently 
that  the  beforementioned  peculiar  articles  were  only  appendages 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  Ill 

of  this  covenant,  as  Pedobaptists  maintain,  nothing  would  be 
gained  which  would  warrant  the  practice  of  infant  baptism. 

For  it  is  evident  that  circumcision  had  respect  to  these  append- 
ages as  well  as  to  the  main  body  of  the  covenant ;  and  that  the 
covenant  assumes  a  very  different  appearance  and  character,  as 
exhibited  in  connexion  with  these  appendages,  from  what  it  does 
without  them,  or  with  other  appendages.  Consequently,  leav- 
ing out  these  appendages,  or  introducing  others  in  their  stead, 
will  materially  affect  the  subject  of  the  seal,  and  of  the  duties 
of  the  covenantees.  Hence  we  cannot  infer  the  manner  of  ap- 
plying baptism,  which  is  a  distinct  religious  rite,  belonging  to 
the  covenant  as  divested  of  its  former  appendages,  and  admin- 
istered in  connexion  with  others,  or,  more  properly  speaking, 
without  any  others — not  even  if  we  should  allow  it  to  be  also  a 
seal  of  the  covenant. 

The  appendages  of  the  covenant  of  grace  as  made  with 
Abraham,  certainly  rendered  its  dispensation  or  administration 
different  from  any  one  which  preceded,  or  which  might  follow 
without  such  appendages,  or  with  others.  And  circumcision 
certainly  had  respect  to  these  appendages  as  well  as  to  the  main 
body  of  the  covenant,  or  to  its  leading  provision  ;  i.e.  it  was 
designed  to  ratify  all  these  items  which  were  annexed  to  the 
covenant,  equally  with  the  body  thereof.  Consequently,  we 
cannot,  upon  any  just  principles  of  reasoning,  infer  that  baptism, 
which  does  not  have  respect  te>  these  appendages  ;  but  belongs  to 
the  covenant  as  administered,  without  them,  or  with  entirely 
different  ones,  must  be  administered  to  the  same  subjects  as  cir- 
cumcision. The  cases  not  being  parallel,  the  argument  from 
inference  and  analogy  is  lost. 

But  I  have  fully  shown  that  it  is  not  proper  to  call  the  Abra* 
hamick  covenant  the  covenant  of  grace  itself.  Therefore,  the 
peculiar  items  which  have  been  enumerated  were  not  appenda- 
ges of  this  covenant.  Certainly,  they  were  not  appendages  of 
the  covenant  made  with  Abraham ;  but  definite  and  essential 
parts  of  it.  They  belonged  to  the  very  body  of  the  covenant, 
and  it  is  surprising  that  any  should  have  undertaken  to  dis- 
tinguish them  therefrom. 

And  this  very  circumstance  is  a  conclusive  argument  against 
considering  this  covenant  the  same  as  the  covenant  of  grace. 
It  was  only  a  dispensation  thereof,  or  a  covenant  containing 
various  gracious  promises,  founded  on  the  engagement  of  the 
Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  before  the  world  began,  respecting  the 
redemption  of  men. 

The  covenant  of  grace,  when  truly  defined,  being  precisely 
the  same  as  the  covenant  of  redemption  ;  it  will,  of  course,  be 


112  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

seen  that  it  is  always  one  and  the  same :  but  the  dispensations 
of  it  have  varied  ;  or  we  may  say,  that  God  has  entered  into 
various  covenants  with  men,  or  with  certain  individuals,  or 
portions  of  mankind,  founded  on  the  eternal  engagement  be- 
tween himself  and  Son,  inclusive  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  was 
to  apply  redemption  when  wrought  out. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  these  covenants,  or  dispensations,  might 
vary,  without  affecting  the  sameness  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
And  nothing  is  plainer  than  that  they  have  varied.  Some  of 
them  have  contained  more  ample  provisions  than  others.  Some 
have  contained  merely  temporal  blessings;  others  merely  spirit- 
ual; and  others  both  temporal  and  spiritual  Some  of  them 
have  been  expressed  in  a  conditional,  and  others  in  an  uncon- 
ditional form. 

There  does  not  appear  to  be  any  material  difference  between 
a  covenant  and  a  promise  :  for  what  is  called  a  promise  in  one 
part  of  scripture  is  called  a  covenant  in  another.  Both  a  con- 
ditional and  an  absolute  promise  is  a  covenant. 

It  is  a  mistaken  view  of  the  subject  that  two  parties  mutually 
promising  are  necessary  to  the  making  of  a  covenant.  A  cove- 
nant does,  indeed,  imply  the  existence  of  two  parties,  and  so 
does  a  promise.  But  a  covenant  does  not  always  imply  an  en- 
gagement of  both.  The  promise  of  the  one  to  the  other,  con- 
ditional, or  unconditional,  is  a  real  covenant.  In  the  case  of  a 
will,  or  testament,  only  one  of  the  parties  makes  a  promise,  or 
grant ;  and  yet  this  is  a  covenant  in  the  highest  sense.  Whoever 
carefully  examines  the  scriptures  will  see  that  this  view  of 
the  nature  of  a  covenant  is  correct. 

And  this  will  all  help  us  to  see  the  propriety  of  the  foregoing 
distinction  between  the  covenant  of  grace  and  its  dispensations^ 
or  the  various  gracious  covenants  which  are  founded  on  it. 

We  shall  also  be  able  to  see  from  this  and  other  considera- 
tions which  have  been  brought  to  view,  that  two  or  more  of 
these  gracious  dispensations,  or  covenants,  may  be  similar,  in 
certain  respects,  and  tend  to  the  same  great  end,  and  yet  each 
may  have  its  distinctive  marks,  so  that  it  may  be  a  different 
covenant  from  any  other,  ur  all  others.  One  of  these  covenants 
may  contain  provisions  more  effectually  adapted  to  the  end  than 
another.  This  was  in  fact  the  case  with  the  Sinai  covenant, 
and  the  new  covenant  which  was  made  at  the  coming  of  Christ, 
and  is  now  in  operation.  Both  were  covenants  of  grace.  But 
the  promise  in  the  former  was  conditional;  and  in  the,  latter 
absolute.  The  former  was,  also,  connected  with  the  ceremonial 
law,  which  was  merely  typical  of  the  redemption  by  Christ ; 
while  the  latter  exhibits  the  substance  itself,  and  plainly  opens 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM.  113 

the  way  into  the  holiest  of  all,  by  the  blood  of  Jesus.  Hence 
St.  Paul  says  expressly  that  the  new  covenant  is  "  a  better  cove- 
nant" than  the  old,  "  established  upon  better  promises.'' 

From  this  view  of  the  covenants  which  God  has,  at  different 
times,  made  with  men,  it  is  evident  that  we  are  to  look  to  each 
for  its  distinctive  character,  and  for  the  application  of  its  seal,  or 
its  ordinances,  if  it  have  any  ;  and  that  we  cannot  infer  our  duty 
in  this  respect,  in  regard  to  one  of  them,  from  the  duty  enjoined 
in  another. 

This  view  of  the  subject,  moreover,  prevents  all  confusion 
and  embarrassment ;  whereas,  if  we  make  the  several  cove- 
nants or  the  leading  ones  which  God  has  entered  into  with 
men,  or  with  particular  individuals,  the  covenant  of  grace  itself 7 
we  are  at  once  involved  in  perplexity,  on  account  of  the 
variety,  and,  in  some  respects,  dissimilarity  of  their  provisions. 
God  promises  more  in  one  of  them  than  in  another ;  and  for  that 
reason  it  is  a  better  covenant :  yet  all  are  founded  in  grace. 

Therefore,  it  is  not  correct  to  call  them  essentially  the  same 
covenant,  and  this  the  covenant  of  grace  ;  and  to  consider  the 
distinctive  items  as  appendages  :  because  what  is  promised  in 
each  is  essential  to  the  covenant  which  contains  it  to  make  it 
what  it  is,  and  hence  cannot  be  merely  an  appendage.  Besides, 
the  covenant  of  grace  is  manifestly  the  one  made  with  Christ 
respecting  men,  and  not  directly  with  men  themselves. 

As  God,  by  virtue  of  the  said  engagement  with  Christ,  has 
made  distinct  covenants  with  men,  although  they  have  all  one 
leading  feature  ;  and  as  it  is  manifest  from  the  very  instruments 
themselves,  that  there  is  a  distinction  not  only  between  the 
new  covenant  under  the  gospel  and  the  Sinai  covenant,  but 
also  between  this  and  the  Abrahamick  covenant ;  it  is  manifestly 
not  consistent  to  consider  baptism  as  a  substitute  for  circumcis- 
ion. It  does  not  belong  to  the  same  covenant,  and,  therefore. 
cannot  be  a  substitute.  Neither  is  it  appointed  for  the  same 
ends ;  certainly  not  for  all  of  them  ;  which  it  must  have  been 
to  make  it  a  proper  substitute.  Neither  are  we  any  where  told 
in  the  scriptures  that  it  is  a  substitute.  Besides,  it  has  been 
fully  shown  that  circumcision  has  never  been  abolished  to  the 
Jews,  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham  ;  but  continued  to  be  prac- 
tised after  the  introduction  of  baptism  by  believing  as  well  as 
unbelieving  Jews ;  and  will  continue  to  be  binding  on  the 
nation  to  the  latest  generation.  And,  hence,  baptism  is  not  a 
substitute  therefor  It  cannot  be  a  substitute  for  circumcision 
to  the  Jews,  because  they  are  still  bound  to  practise  that  rite. 
And  it  cannot  be  a  substitute  for  it  to  the  Gentiles  ;  for  it  never 
belonged  to  them  in  their  separate  national  capacitv. 

10* 


114  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

But  baptism  is  altogether  a  new  ordinance,  pertaining  to  a 
new  and  very  different  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

It  is  not  proper,,  however,  to  call  it  a  seal  of  this  new  dis* 
pensation  or  covenant.  For  the  only  proper  seal  of  it  is  the 
blood  of  Christ. 

Baptism  is  no  where  in  scripture  represented  as  a  seal  of  this 
covenant,  nor  of  any  promise  which  God  has  made  whatever. 
It  is  merely  required  as  a  duty,  being  an  outward  purification 
representing  the  inward,  and  a  significant  badge  of  discipleship. 

But  there  would  be  no  more  propriety  in  calling  it  a  seal  of 
the  new  covenant,  than  there  would  have  been  in  calling  the 
"  diverse  washings"  under  the  law,  seals  of  the  Abrahamick 
covenant. 

Baptism,  being  positively  appointed,  is  of  high  importance, 
and  it  has.  its  peculiar  use  as  an  act  of  open  submission  to 
Christ ;  a  badge  of  discipleship,  and  an  initiating  rite  into  the 
Christian  church.  Hence,  the  very  nature  of  the  case  shows 
that  it  is  applicable  to  believers  only. 

To  sustain  the  argument  for  infant  baptism  from  inference 
and  analogy,  it  must  be  shown  that  the  Abrahamick  covenant 
and  the  new  covenant  are  in  all  respects  the  same — that  cir- 
cumcision and  baptism  were  appointed  for  the  very  same  pur- 
poses;  and  that  the  latter  is  expressly  substituted  by  the  law- 
giver himself  in  the  place  of  the  former.  And  then  the  argu- 
ment would  go  no  farther  than  to  warrant  the  baptism  of  male 
adults  and  infants.  It  would  give  no  countenance  to  the  baptism 
of  females 

But  neither  of  these  things  can  be  shown  ;  but  the  contrary 
is  abundantly  manifest.  Hence,  the  argument  is  utterly  defec- 
tive, and  ought  forever  to  be  abandoned. 

There  is  evidently  now  the  same  propriety  from  the  nature 
of  the  new  covenant  for  applying  and  restricting  baptism  to 
believers  of  both  sexes,  which  there  was  formerly  for  applying 
and  restricting  circumcision  to  the  males  of  Abraham's  house 
and  posterity. 

The  covenant  made  with  him  and  its  appointed  token,  were 
designed,  among  other  things  already  enumerated,  to  separate 
one  whole  nation  from  the  rest  of  mankind ;  to  be,  in  various 
respects,  a  peculiar  people,  and,  (to  use  the  words  of  Doct. 
Owen,)  "  for  the  bringing  forth  of  the  Messiah  as  Abraham's 
seed  in  fulfilment  of  the  promise." 

But  the  new  covenant  and  baptism,  are  designed  to  collect 
and  separate  from  the  world  believers  of  all  nations,  and  to  form 
them  into  one  spiritual  society  or  kingdom.    Hence,  from  th<r 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  115 

nature  of  the  case,  this  ordinance  should  be  restricted  to  such 
as,  in  a  judgement  of  charity,  are  Christians,  or  disciples. 

This,  accordingly,  perfectly  agrees  with  the  apostolick  com- 
mission and  practice,  as  we  have  seen.  The  pleasure  of  Christ 
is  signified  so  far,  but  no  farther. 

Hence,  to  bring  the  children  of  believers  to  baptism  on  their 
parents'  faith,  by  means  of  deductions  from  the  covenant  of 
circumcision,  is  wholly  unauthorized,  and  a  great  corruption  of 
this  ordinance. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  1 1  7 


CHAPTER  XIIL 

The  argument  for  the  baptism  of  infants  grounded  on  the  interest 
which  they  are  supposed  to  have  in  the  promise  of  the  Abraha- 
mick  covenant,  considered  and  refuted. 

Although  the  Abrahamick  covenant  was  not  properly  the 
covenant  of  grace  ;  yet  it  is  confessedly  important  to  consider 
its  provisions  as  a  dispensation  thereof,  or  as  a  covenant  of  grace. 

The  argument  in  question  is  based  upon  the  following  decla- 
ration, viz.  "  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me 
and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an 
everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed 
after  thee." 

This  promise  is  supposed  to  belong  to  believing  parents  in 
common  among  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  among  the  Jews.  And 
as  circumcision  was  a  token  of  it  formerly,  so  baptism  is  con- 
sidered a  token  of  it  now.  Hence  the  former  warrant  to  apply 
circumcision  to  the  infants  of  believers,  is  viewed  as  a  warrant 
for  applying  baptism  to  them  now. 

But  if  I  shall  succeed  in  showing  that  the  promise  in  ques- 
tion does  not  belong  to  believing  parents  in  common,  and  their 
seed,  not  even  to  Jewish  parents  and  theirs,  but  was  peculiar  to 
Abraham  and  his,  and  consequently,  that  baptism  is  not  a  to- 
ken of  it  as  circumcision  was  formerly,  then  the  warrant  for 
infant  baptism,  grounded  thereon,  will  disappear. 

It  is  of  great  importance  to  understand  correctly  what  God 
did,  in  fact,  promise  to  Abraham,  and  then  we  shall  be  prepared 
to  determine  whether  his  was  a  peculiar  case,  or  whether  the 
same  be  promised  to  all  believing  parents. 

The  argument  in  question,  as  generally  managed,  limits  the 
term  seed  to  Abraham's  immediate  children,  and  either  holds  that 
the  promise  was  conditionally  to  him  and  also  to  them,  or  that  it 
was  conditional  to  him  and  absolute  as  it  respected  them,  i.  e.  if 
Abraham  was  faithful,  they  should  be  called  and  saved. 
-  Hence  the  warrant  to  circumcise  infants  is  supposed  to  be 
limited  to  his  immediate  household;  and  that  the  covenant  was 
to  be  transmitted  to  each  successive  parent  and  his  immediate 


118  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

children,  on  the  same  condition,  or  in  the  same  sense,  with 
the  right  and  duty  of  applying  the  seal  to  them,  and  to  be  limited 
in  the  same  manner  as  to  Abraham  and  his  family.  So  that  the 
right  of  circumcision  to  succeeding  generations,  rested  not  on 
their  connexion  with  Abraham,  their  great  progenitor,  but  on  the 
Jaith  of  their  immediate  parents. 

But  this  limiting  of  the  seed,  and  consequently  the  right  of 
circumcision,  to  Abraham  and  his  immediate  children,  and  this 
notion  of  the  descent  of  the  covenant  singly  or  separately  to  each 
believer  arid  his  immediate  seed*  are  manifestly  erroneous. 

The  real  truth  is,  God  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  in- 
cluding both  himself  and  his  posterity,  indefinitely,  remote  as 
well  as  immediate,  particularly  in  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob  ; 
and  this  covenant  embraced  both  temporal  and  spiritual  bless- 
ings. Hence  both  himself  and  his  seed  after  him,  in  their  gene- 
rations, were  required  to  be  circumcised.  The  whole  nation 
was  thus  divided  and  separated,  according  to  God's  free  and 
sovereign  pleasure,  from  the  rest  of  the  nations,  and  a  line  of 
distinction  formed  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  which  has  hith- 
erto continued,  and  will,  without  doubt,  hereafter  continue 
down  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

I  say  his  posterity  were  included  with  him  indefinitely,  by 
which  I  mean  that  God  did  not  promise  that  all  his  descend- 
ants in  every  generation  should  become  pious  like  himself, 
but  that  some  of  them  should,  and  the  aggregate  number  should 
be  very  great,  as  before  explained,  and  that  his  posterity,  in* 
definitely,  should  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan. 

Hence,  whatever  might  be  the  character  of  any  succeeding 
parent,  his  children's  right  to  circumcision  remained  clear  and 
undiminished,  because  they  were  the  descendants  of  Abraham, 
and  God  had  expressly  ordered  that  they  should  be  circumcised. 
His  words  were,  "  Thou  shalt  keep  my  covenant  therefore, 
thou  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in  their  generations.  Every  man 
child  among  you  shall  be  circumcised."  This,  therefore,  was 
a  sufficient  warrant  for  the  application  of  this  rite  to  all  suc- 
ceeding generations  of  his  seed.  Every  man  child,  whether  of 
the  immediate  or  remote  posterity,  was  manifestly  to  be  circum- 
cised. And  this  rite  might  be  administered  by  the  father  or 
the  mother  of  the  child,  or  by  the  physician,  the  nurse,  the 
king,  the  priest  or  the  common  citizen — only  it  must  be  done. 

But  the  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism  is  to  be  administered 
by  a  regular  minister  of  the  gospel*  and  it  would  be  impious  in 
any  other  person  to  undertake  to  administer  it,  which  circum- 
stance shows  a  very  great  dissimilarity  in  the  two  cases. 

That  this  view  of  the  seed,  as  embracing  remote  posterity  as 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  1 19 

well  as  near ;  and  consequently  this  extended  vieiv  of  circum- 
cision, are  correct,  will  appear  abundantly  evident  as  we  pro- 
ceed. 

Rightly  to  understand  the  clause,  "  tobe  a  God  unto  thee  and 
to  thy  seed  after  thee,"  it  must  be  taken  in  connexion  with  what 
immediately  precedes,  and  wifti  other  declarations  elsewhere 
relative  to  the  same  subject.  The  whole  sentence  runs  thus: 
"  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy 
seed  after  thee  in  their  generations,  for  au  everlasting  covenant, 
to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  It  is,  hence, 
plain  that  "  the  seed  after  him"  was  not,  merely,  his  children  of 
t  he  first  generation,  but  of  successive  generations,  however  remote. 
The  words  are  plural ;  not  his  seed  in  their  generation  ;  but  in 
their  generations  ;"  which  undeniably  include  remote  as  well  as 
immediate  posterity.  The  fifth,  tenth  and  fiftieth  generation  were 
as  truly  included  with  him  in  the  covenant  as  the  first. 

And  they  were  thus  included,  not  upon  any  condition  to  be 
performed  by  their  immediate  parents ;  but  on  the  ground  of 
the  free  and  gracious  engagement  which  God  made  with  Abra- 
ham personally. 

I  do  not  think  that  even  Abraham^  faith  and  piety  were  a 
proper  condition,  upon  which  the  blessing  descended  to  his  pos- 
terity, although  God  manifestly  testified  his  love  to  him  in  bles- 
sing his  descendants.  But  the  whole  that  he  did,  from  his  call 
in  the  land  of  the  Chaldees,  for  himself  and  posterity,  was  of 
free  and  sovereign  mercy. 

Though  the  scriptures  sometimes  speak  as  though  there  were 
a  condition  ;  the  fulfilment  thereof  was  secured  by  God's  free 
promise.  So  that  the  covenant,  considered  as  a  whole,  is  pre- 
sented in  an  absolute  form,  securing  to  Abraham  the  several 
items  which  it  contained. 

But  so  far  as  there  was  any  condition  in  the  case,  i.  e.  so  far 
as  the  descent  of  the  blessing  to  his  posterity  in  their  genera- 
tions, depended  on  parental  faithfulness,  it  was  evidently  on  con- 
dition of  his  own  faithfulness  as  the  father  and  head  of  the  na- 
tion, and  not  on  the  faithfulness  of  parents  in  subsequent  gen* 
e  rations. 

God  might,  indeed,  hear  the  prayers  and  bless  the  instruc- 
tions of  subsequent  parents  to  the  spiritual  good  of  their  chil- 
dren ;  but  this  is  not  the  thing  which  he  engaged  to  do  in  this 
covenant,  or  upon  the  condition  of  which  the  blessing  engaged 
was  suspended.  He  here  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham  him- 
self and  his  seed  after  him  in  their  generations,  remote  as  well  as 
near,  specifying  positively  what  he  would  do  for  kirn  and  iketii. 


120.  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 

So  far  therefore  as  any  condition  was  required  in  the  ease,  it 
was  required  of,  and  performed  by,  Abraham. 

Hence  the  promise  was  absolute  that  God  would  do  thus  and 
thus  for  his  posterity  in  their  generations. 

It  is  not  said,  neither  is  it  intimated,  that  God  would  establish 
the  covenant  and  be  a  God  to  his  posterity,  provided  each  succes- 
sive parent,  or  any  class  or  number  of  parents,  would  practise 
faithfulness ;  but  the  whole  engagement  was  with  himself,  all 
was  then  settled,  ratified  and  secured. 

God  did,  indeed,  renew  the  covenant  in  part  with  Isaac  and 
Jacob  ;  and  in  Kis  gracious  dealings  with  the  nation,  he  some- 
times refers  to  the  love  which  he  bore  to  them  as  well  as  to 
Abraham. 

Nevertheless,  every  thing  engaged  to  Isaac  and  Jacob  and 
their  posterity  was,  in  the  first  place,  freely  and  absolutely  en- 
gaged to  Abraham.    To  them  it  was  only  renewed  and  repeated. 

But  after  the  branches  spread  from  the  stock,  as  in  the  case  of 
Jacob's  children,  no  other  individual  subsequently  stood  in  the 
same  relation  to  the  covenant  that  these  three  patriarchs  did, 
and  especially  that  Abraham  did  himself. 

Hence,  the  favour  shown  to  the  nation  in  the  time  of  Moses, 
nearly  five  hundred  years  after  the  promise  was  first  made  to 
Abraham,  is  attributed,  not  to  the  regard  which  God  had  to  their 
immediate  parents,  but  to  the  regard  which  he  bore  to  those 
patriarchs.  "  The  Lord,"  said  Moses,  on  the  plains  of  Moab, 
*{  loved  your  fathers,  and  he  chose  their  seed  alter  them,  even 
you  above  all  people  as  it  is  this  day."  When  Hazael  king  of 
Syria  oppressed  Israel  all  the  days  of  Jehoahaz,  it  is  said,  IL 
Kings,  xiii.  22.  "  And  the  Lord  was  gracious  unto  them,  and 
had  compassion  on  them,  and  had  respect  unto  them,  because  of 
his  covenant  with  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  would  not  de- 
stroy them,  neither  cast  he  them  from  his  presence  as  yet." — 
When  Moses  in  the  xxvi.  chap,  of  Leviticus,  had  predicted  what 
desolating  judgements  should  come  upon  the  nation  in  after  ages 
for  their  sins,  he  adds  these  impressive  words,  "  And  yet  for 
all  that,  when  they  be  in  the  land  of  their  enemies,  I  will  not 
cast  them  away,  neither  will  I  abhor  them,  to  destroy  them  ut- 
terly, and  to  break  my  covenant  with  them  :  for  I  am  the  Lord 
their  God.  But  I  will  for  their  sakes  remember  the  covenant  of 
their  ancestors,  when  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt, 
that  I  might  be  their  God:"  alluding,  unquestionably,  to  the 
Abrahamick  covenant.  Again  ;  God  says  by  the  prophet  Jere- 
miah, chap.  xlvi.  28,  "  For  I  will  make  a  full  end  of  all  the  na- 
tions whither  I  have  driven  thee  :  but  I  will  not  make  a  full  end 
of  thee,  but  correct  thee  in  measure.*"  How  strikingly  do  wc  see. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  1 21 

this  declaration  fulfilled  to  this  day.  Though  that  people  are 
scattered  among  all  nations,  they  are  preserved  distinct,  and 
unquestionably  they  will  continue  so.  Hence,  in  reference  to 
their  future  ingathering,  St.  Paul  says,  Romans,  xi.  25,  26,  28. 
"  Blindness  in  part  is  happened  to  Israel,  until  the  fulness  of  the 
Gentiles  be  come  in  ;  and  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved" — "  a? 
touching  the  election,  they  are  beloved  for  the  fathers'  sakes." 

It  is  manifest  from  these  passages,  that  the  seed  included 
with  Abraham  in  the  covenant,  means  remote  posterity  as  well 
as  immediate  ;  and  that  the  blessing  promised  to  the  seed  was  not 
suspended  upon  the  fidelity  of  successive  parents ;  but  was  freely 
and  absolutely  -engaged  to  him;  it  being  always  understood  that 
the  promise  was  indefinite,  not  embracing  all  the  natural  seed, 
but  only  the  children  of  promise — such  as  God  was  pleased  to 
call. 

Hence,  in  the  darkest  periods  with  that  people,  there  was  a 
reference,  as  we  have  seen,  to  that  covenant.  God  would  not 
utterly  cast  them  off  on  account  of  it— yea,  the  ordinances  of 
heaven  should  depart  before  he  would  cast  off  all  the  seed  of 
Israel  from  being  his  people.  There  was  always  a  remnant  of 
believers  under  the  former  dispensation,  u  according  to  the 
election  of  grace,"  and  for  aught  appears,  there  has  been  a 
remnant  to  this  day,  and  will  continue  to  be.  "  As  touching 
the  election,  the  nation  is  yet  beloved  for  the  fathers'  sakes," 
and  will  in  due  time  "  be  graffed  in  again." 

The  transaction,  then,  with  Abraham,  inclusive  of  his  seed, 
was  a  singular  and  wonderful  exhibition  of  God's  mercy — alto- 
gether a  peculiar  case.  The  cases  of  other  parents  and  of  other 
portions  of  our  Lord's  kingdom,  are,  by  no  means,  parallel  with 
his.  Other  believers  may  fail  entirely  of  having  posterity,  or 
their  seed  may  run  out,  or  the  descent  of  piety  among  them  may 
become  extinct,  however  glowing  it  might  have  been  in  the 
original  stock ;  and  other  nations,  however  enlightened  they 
may  have  once  been,  may  revert  back  into  heathenish  dark- 
ness, and  be  swallowed  up  among  the  multitude  of  other 
kingdoms,  and  lost.  But  the  covenant  with  Abraham  secured  to  ' 
him  the  existence  of  posterity  permanently — yea,  a  numerous  pos- 
terity, and  that  as  a  distinct  people,  though  scattered  among  all ; 
and  the  continued  existence  of  a  pious  seed  to  some  extent,  at 
least  down  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  subsequently ;  and,  I 
doubt  not,  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Hence  their  preservation 
and  distinction  are  a  standing  miracle. 

It  cannot,  therefore,  be  pretended  that  God  deals  with  othe? 
believers,  especially  with  particular  believers  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, on  so  large  a  scale ;  and  that  baptism  is  to  be  applied  to 

11 


122  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  extent  that  circumcision  was.  The  argument  from  this 
covenant  and  circumcision,  if  it  proves  any  thing,  proves  vastly 
too  much,  and  hence  proves  nothing. 

As  the  same  covenant  is  manifestly  not  made  with  believers 
in  common,  the  practice  of  baptizing  infants  cannot  be  inferred 
from  the  promise  in  question. 

While  this  promise  to  call  and  preserve  a  pious  seed  in  suc- 
cessive generations,  did  not  necessarily  embrace  the  whole  of 
his  posterity,  but  often  included  but  a  remnant  as  in  the  days  of 
Elijah,  the  order  to  circumcise  was  so  expressed  as  to  include 
the  whole  nation  :  "  Every  man  child  among  you  shall  be  cir- 
cumcised." 

That  the  seed  includes  remote  as  well  as  immediate  posterity, 
is  still  further  evident  from  the  following  declarations,  viz.  "  In 
blessing,  I  will  bless  thee  ;  and  in  multiplying,  I  will  multiply 
thee,"  i.  e.  both  lineally  and  spiritually.  "  I  will  multiply  thy 
seed  as  the  stars  of  heaven."  a  And  so  shall  thy  seed  be,"  i.  e. 
as  innumerable  as  the  stars. 

These  promises  clearly  and  undeniably  show,  that  the  seed 
connected  with  him  are  not  confined  to  his  immediate  children, 
but  include  remote  posterity  also ;  and  in  the  spiritual  sense, 
believers  also  from  the  Gentiles,  as  Paul  shows  in  the  iv.  chap- 
ter of  Romans. 

Therefore,  all  this  goes  to  give  the  covenant  with  him  and 
circumcision  a  peculiar  character,  and  to  show  that  the  argu- 
ment from  that  source  for  infant  baptism  is  perfectly  groundless. 
The  cases  are  in  no  measure  parallel. 

There  is  one  consideration  more  that  confirms  the  foregoing- 
view  of  the  seed,  which  must  not  be  omitted.  It  is  this :  that 
God  said,  "  I  will  give  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  all 
the  land  of  Canaan,"  as  well  as  promise  "  to  be  a  God  to  him 
and  his  seed  after  him  ;"  and  in  the  former  case  nothing  can  be 
clearer  than  that  the  seed  included  remote  posterity,  for  the 
promise  was  not  properly  or  fully  verified  till  between  four  and 
live  hundred  years  afterwards.  Yet  the  phraseology  is  exactly 
the  same  as  in  the  latter  case. 

This  extensive  sense  of  the  term  seed,  while  it  gives  the  co- 
venant a  peculiar  character,  and  cuts  off*  all  reasonable  preten- 
sions that  the  same  covenant  is  made  with  other  believers,  fur- 
nishes a  valid  reason  for  the  circumcision  of  the  nation  in  suc- 
cessive ages,  but  gives  no  countenance  to  the  baptism  of  the 
children  of  believers  under  the  gospel. 

To  undertake  to  derive  an  argument  from  this  source  for  this 
practice,  obliges  one  to  maintain,  with  regard  to  believers  in  com- 
mon, what  is  palpably  untrue,  and  to  infer  vastly  more  than  any 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  123 

enlightened  Christian  would  wish,  viz.  not  only  the  baptism  of 
his  immediate  children,  but  of  all  his  posterity,  upon  his  faith, 
however  remote.  The  argument  is  just  as  good  for  the  bap- 
tism of  the  tenth  generation  as  for  that  of  the  first ;  but,  in  fact, 
it  is  good  for  nothing  in  either  case. 

To  say  that  the  promise  is  to  ordinary  believing  parents  and 
their  seed,  in  a  less  extended  sense  than  to  Abraham,  is  to  give 
up  the  plea  at  once,  that  the  same  covenant  now  exists  between 
God  and  them,  and  their  seed,  and  that  all  which  was  engaged 
to  him  belongs  to  them.  It  certainly  cannot  be  proved  from 
the  terms  of  the  covenant  itself,  that  God  makes  a  less  extend- 
ed covenant  with  them  and  their  seed,  than  with  him  and  his  ; 
and  therefore  the  argument  is  lost. 

I  know  it  is  said,  that  u  they  which  are  of  faith  are  blessed 
with  faithful  Abraham,"  and  that  "if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye 
Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise."  But  the 
meaning  is,  not  that  they  inherit  every  thing  which  was  prom- 
ised to  him ;  but  only  the  leading  blessing  of  justification  by 
faith,  and  salvation  by  free  grace.  They  are  blessed  with  him, 
because  the  seed  promised  to  him,  spiritually  and  extensively 
considered,  includes  them.  They  are  heirs  of  the  particular 
promise—"  in  thy  seed  shall  all  nations  be  blessed." 

But  this  does  not  imply  that  God  makes  the  same  covenant 
with  ordinary  believers  that  he  did  with  him,  not  even  in  a  less 
extended  sense,  because  the  very  statement  itself  implies  that  it 
is  not  the  same.  They  do  not,  and  cannot,  stand  in  the  same 
relation  to  the  covenant  that  he  did.  They  are  not  Abraham , 
nor  a  succession  of  Abrahams,  but  simply  Abraham's  seed,  in 
the  large  and  spiritual  sense  of  the  terms. 

If,  to  sustain  the  argument  for  infant  baptism,  it  should  be 
said  that  although  no  individual  believer  stands  in  the  same  re- 
lation to  the  covenant  that  Abraham  did,  yet  that  the  church 
does  collectively — that  the  church  has  stepped  into  his  place,  and 
that  the  promise  is  now  to  her  and  her  seed,  as  it  was  to 
Abraham  and  his,  and  to  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  theirs  ;  and  that 
after  Jacob,  the  real  ground  for  the  continuance  of  circumcis- 
ion, was  God's  covenant  with  the  church  and  her  seed  ;  and  that 
accordingly,  the  ground  for  infant  baptism  now,  is  God's  cove- 
nant with  the  church  and  her  seed,  and  not  with  each  individual 
believing  parent  and  his  ;  I  would  remark, 

1.  That  the  ground  here  stated  for  continuing  circumcision 
to  the  seed  of  Israel,  is  manifestly  incorrect.  The  scriptures 
never  base  it  upon  such  a  principle.  And  I  have  sufficiently 
proven  that  the  real  ground  for  its  continuance  was  God's  cove- 
aant  with  Abraham,  and  his  order  for  the  circumcision  of  him- 


124  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 

self  and  his  seed.  The  original  charter  remained  good,  and  did 
not  require  to  be  renewed  with  each  successive  generation  of 
his  seed  ;  nor  is  it  ever  represented  as  being  so  renewed.  The 
right  was  permanent. 

2.  To  base  infant  baptism  on  this  principle,  would  be  basing 
it  on  one  which  is  very  general  and  indefinite,  and  one  which 
would  lead  to  the  unlimited  use  of  baptism. 

According  to  this  scheme,  the  promise  is  not  that  God  will 
bless  each  believer  and  his  seed ;  but  the  church  collectively  and 
her  seed j  i.  e.  he  promises  to  bless  them  as  a  class ,  or  to  call 
some  of  them.  Consequently,  if  he  ^eeps  alive  a  seed  of  be- 
lievers somewhere  among  the  seed  of  the  church,  this  is  all 
which  baptism  purports  as  being  engaged.  This,  then,  is  bas- 
ing the  practice  on  very  general  and  indefinite  ground — on 
ground  so  very  different  from  any  thing  contained  in  the  scrip- 
tures, that  few,  if  any,  will,  upon  proper  examination,  under- 
take to  defend  it. 

Besides,  it  would  naturally  lead  to  the  baptism  of  all,  with- 
out distinction,  whether  children  of  the  church,  or  not ;  be- 
cause God  has  promised  to  call  an  elect  people  from  among  the 
Gentiles  collectively,  as  he  did  from  among  the  Jews  collectively. 
According  to  this  principle,  therefore,  baptism  should  be  ap- 
plied as  extensively  as  circumcision. 

3.  It  belongs,  upon  this  principle,  to  the  church,  and  not  to 
the  individual  parents,  to  offer  up  the  children  in  baptism. 

This  is  an  unavoidable  consequence  :  for  if  the  church  has 
stepped  into  Abraham's  place,  or  taken  his  standing  in  relation  to 
the  covenant,  and  if  circumcision  was  practised  after  Jacob,  and 
baptism  is  now  practised  upon  this  ground,  i.  e.  upou  the  ground 
of  the  promise  made  to  her  collectively,  and  her  seed,  and  not 
upon  the  promise  to  parents  individually,  and  their  seed ;  then 
it  is  clearly  the  province  and  duty  of  the  church  collectively,  and 
not  of  the  parents,  to  present  the  children  in  this  ordinance. 
The  party  with  whom  the  covenant  is  made  should  manifestly 
be  the  one  to  give  up  the  children.  This  duty,  therefore,  will, 
as  I  said,  unavoidably  belong  to  the  church.  Hence  the  dea- 
cons, or  a  committee  appointed  for  the  purpose,  should  brinj* 
forward  the  children  in  behalf  of  the  church  ;  or  the  baptism 
should  be  performed  in  some  way  for  the  church,  so  that  it 
might  be  known  to  be  her  act,  and  not  the  act  of  the  parents. 

Hence,  this  would  be  wholly  changing  the  ground  for  this 
practice.  But  the  above  principle  will  necessarily  lead  to  it. 
And  the  absurdity  of  the  consequence  is  sufficient  to  overthrow 
the  premises  ;  besides,  the  premises  themselves  have  no  foun- 
dation in  the  scriptures. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISflfly  ^  12S 

After  all /therefore,  which  can  be  said  upon  the  subject,  it  is 
clear  that  the  promise  that  God  would  be  a  God  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed  after  him  in  their  generations,  was  peculiar  to  him 
and  them,  and  cannot  be  claimed  by  ordinary  believers,  so  as  to 
lay  a  foundation  for  the  baptism  of  infants.  Even  if  it  should 
be  allowed  that  this  promise  does  belong  to  them  and  their  seed, 
in  the  same  sense  that  it  did  to  Abraham  and  his,  we  could  not 
consider  baptism  as  a  token  thereof,  and  a  substitute  for  circum- 
cision, unless  we  are  so  instructed  by  the  word  of  God,  which 
is  not  the  case ;  and  hence  the  inference  for  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants fails. 

In  reference  to  that  class  of  Pedobaptists  who  consider  the 
promise  in  the  Abrahamick  covenant  conditional,  both  as  it  re- 
spects the  parents  and  children,  i.  e.  that  God  promised  to  be 
the  God  of  Abraham  on  condition  of  his  faith,  and  the  God  of 
his  seed  on  condition  of  their  faith,  and  that  he  promises  the 
same  to  other  parents  and  their  children,  on  the  same  condi- 
tion ;  and  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  promise  to  the  parents 
which  secures  the  existence  of  faith  in  the  children  ;  I  would 
observe,  that  this  presents  no  other  ground  for  the  baptism  of 
the  children  of  believers,  than  for  the  baptism  of  the  children 
of  unbelievers,  yea,  of  all  other  persons  whatever,  without  re- 
gard to  their  present  moral  character  ;  as  I  have  already  shown 
in  my  exposition  of  Acts,  ii.  38,  39. 

According  to  this  exposition  of  the  promise,  the  notion  that 
the  children  of  believers  are  in  covenant,  and  those  of  unbeliev- 
ers not,  is  entirely  without  foundation.  The  latter  are  in  cove- 
nant as  truly  as  the  former,  provided  the  promise  is  merely  con- 
ditional. For  it  is  to  all — yea,  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  as  well 
as  to  the  children  of  believers.  Here,  then,  is  no  other  ground 
for  the  baptism  of  the  latter,  than  exists  for  the  baptism  of  all 
mankind. 

And  the  argument  for  infant  baptism,  based  upon  that  view 
of  the  promise  which  secures  the  piety  of  the  children  on  condi- 
lion  of  parental  faithfulness,  I  have  already  refuted  in  this  chap- 
ter. If  it  proves  any  thing,  it  proves  too  much,  and  thereby 
destroys  itself.  It  is,  on  the  whole,  perfectly  manifest  that 
Abraham's  case  was  peculiar,  and  is  not  to  be  adduced  as  an 
example,  in  the  point  in  question,  for  others,  and  especially  for 
Gentile  believers. 

Neither  is  there  any  other  promise  than  that  which  has  been 
considered,  to  believers  and  their  seed,  which  will  authorize 
infant  baptism. 

Even  if  it  could  be  proved  that  God  does  expressly  engage 
to  bless  and  save  the  children  of  believers,  if  faithful,  this  would 

11* 


126  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

not  lay  a  foundation  for  their  baptism,  unless  we  are  somewhere 
taught  that  baptism  is  a  token  or  seal  of  this  promise,  and  that 
it  should  be  applied  to  the  children  as  well  as  the  parents  ;— 
which  is  not  the  case. 

The  existence  of  stick  a  promise  itself  any  where  in  the  Bible, 
cannot  be  conclusively  shown. 

Indeed,  from  the  ordinary  connexion  which  God  has  estab- 
lished between  means  and  ends  ;  from  his  command  respect- 
ing the  religious  education  of  children  ;  and  from  his  character 
as  a  prayer-hearing  God,  parents  may  take  encouragement,  if 
faithful,  to  hope  that  their  children,  to  some  extent,  at  least, 
will  be  brought  into  the  kingdom. 

But  this  does  not  appear  to  be  engaged  in  any  covenant  trans- 
action between  God  and  each  believing  parent,  and  ratified  by 
baptism. 

The  passages  which  are  brought  in  support  of  such  a  cove- 
nant, in  addition  to  the  promise  already  considered  to  Abraham, 
will  be  found,  on  examination,  to  be  insufficient  to  prove  its  ex- 
istence. 

One  of  these  is  Deut.  v.  29,  "  O  that  there  were  such  an 
heart  in  them,  thatthey  would  fear  me,  and  keep  my  command- 
ments always,  that  it  might  be  well  with  them,  and  with  their 
children  forever."  This  is  spoken  of  the  nation  collectively. 
It  expresses  a  desire  that  the  nation  were,  and  would  continue  to 
be,  a  holy  and  obedient  people,  for  the  %good  of  the  present  and 
succeeding  generations.  In  that  case,  their  children  as  well  as 
themselves  would,  indeed,  enjoy  happiness  and  prosperity. — 
But  it  will  be  perceived  that  there  is  a  condition  implied  on  the 
part  of  the  children  as  well  as  of  the  parents.  The  promise  is 
not  that  if  the  parents  would  be  obedient,  the  children  should 
be  of  course;  but  if  the  children  would  be  obedient  too,  they 
should  also  be  happy.  As  long  as  the  nation,  parents  and  chil- 
dren together,  should  keep  God's  commandments,  it  would  be 
well  with  them.  The  personal  obedience  of  each  is  plainly  the 
condition  of  being  blessed.  This,  then,  affords  no  proof  of  the 
existence  of  such  a  covenant  as  above  described.  The  follow- 
ing passages,  to  which  the  reader  is  merely  referred,  may  be  ex- 
plained in  a  similar  manner,  viz.  Deut.  vi,  2,  xxviii.  2,  3,  4, 
and  xxx.  2,  6 ;  Ps.  ciii.  17,  18,  and  Ex.  xx.  6. 

The  following,  viz.  Deut.  vii.  8,  9,  and  x.  15  ;  Isaiah,  xliv. 
3,  and  lix.  21  ;  and  Jer.  xxxii.  39,  may  be  explained  on  the 
principle  of  the  promise  contained  in  the  Abrahamick  covenanl5 
as  already  illustrated. 

The  seed  of  God's  servants  mentioned  in  Ps.  lxix.  36,   and 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  127 

eii.  28,  mean  not  simply  the  carnal  seed  ;  but  the  imitators  of 
the  faith  of  their  parents,  or  predecessors. 

Jer.  xxx.  20,  relates  to  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  cap- 
tivity, and  therefore  furnishes  no  proof  that  children  stand  in 
the  same  relation  to  the  church  now,  as  formerly. 

Proverbs  xx.  7,  and  xxii.  6,  and  Ps.  xxxvii.  25,  26,  contain 
a  recognition  of  general  facts,  or  maxims.  There  is  wont  to  be 
>  connexion  between  the  piety  and  faithfulness  of  parents, 
and  the  piety  and  uprightness  of  their  children,  on  a  general 
scale,  leaving  room  for  exceptions.  These  are  statements  of 
the  ordinary  influence  of  a  pious  education  upon  children. — 
But  this  connexion  is  not  noticed  in  the  form  of  a  covenant, 
but  rather  as  a  matter  of  fact.  The  same  principle  might  be 
extended  to  the  instructions  of  a  pious  minister  and  his  people, 
or  of  a  pious  teacher  and  his  pupils,  or  his  sabbath  school  chil- 
dren :  as  to  matter  of  fact,  these  means  are  wont  to  be  blessed 
to  some  extent.  But  the  subject  is  not  put  into  the  form  of  a 
covenant,  and  ratified  with  a  seal.  Neither  is  it  in  the  former 
case.  Therefore,  the  baptism  of  infants  cannot  be  inferred 
therefrom. 

These,  together  with  those  examined  in  a  former  part  of 
this  work,  are  the  principal  passages  brought  in  support  of  the 
covenant  promise  which  is  supposed  to  exist  in  relation  to  be- 
lievers and  their  seed  ;  and  they  evidently  furnish  no  premises 
from  which  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  can  be  duly  inferred. 

Even  if  it  could  be  proved  that  God  has  made  a  covenant 
with  believers  in  common  to  bless  their  immediate  children, 
provided  they  are  faithful,  this  right  would  not  follow.  Be- 
cause baptism  is  no  where  said  to  be  a  token,  or  seal,  of  such  a 
covenantor  promise,  or  to  be  designed  for  any  such  purpose. 

And  even  if  it  were,  it  would  not  follow  that  it  must  be  ap- 
plied any  further  than  to  believers  of  both  sexes.  It  is  a  positive 
institution,  and  the  use  of  it  is  defined  and  limited  by  the  very 
words  of  the  institution.  Were  it  clearly  and  undeniably  a  seal 
of  such  a  promise,  we  might  argue  reasonably  and  conclusively, 
that  it  answers  all  the  purposes  of  a  seal,  when  applied  to  be- 
lievers of  both  sexes,  as  truly  as  circumcision  did  when  applied 
to  the  males  of  Abraham's  family.  It  will  not  prove  the  right 
of  the  children  to  baptism  to  say  that  they  are  interested  in  the 
promise;  for  the  females  in  Abraham's  family  were  interested  in 
the  promise  of  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  him,  as 
truly  as  the  males ;  and  yet  the  seal  ivas  not  to  be  applied  to 
them.  Will  it  be  said  that  it  was  not  applicable  to  them  ?  But, 
if  simply  an  interest  in  the  promise  gave  a  right  to  the  seal, 
then  doubtless  God  would  have  appointed  a  seal  which  was 


128  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

applicable  to  both  sexes,  provided  circumcision  was  not ;  or  the 
seal  appointed  would  have  been  applied  to  females  as  far  as  the 
nature  of  the  case  would  admit. 

The  truth  of  the  case  is,  this  interest  in  the  promise  did  not 
give  the  right  to  the  seal :  but  that  which  gave  the  right  was 
the  order  of  God,  which  expressly  limited  it  to  the  males. 

So  in  the  case  before  us,  that  which  gives  the  right  to  the 
ordinance  of  baptism  is  not  the  interest  of  the  subject  in  the 
promise,  but  the  order  of  God,  which  is  expressly  limited  to 
believers  of  both  sexes. 

This  application  of  baptism,  allowing  the  aforesaid  covenant 
to  exist,  and  baptism  to  be  the  seal  of  it,  is  a  sufficient  confirma* 
tiou  of  the  promise,  and  we  have  no  warrant  to  extend  it  any- 
further. 

If  it  be  said  that  we  are  not  forbidden  to  baptize  infants,  I 
reply,  neither  were  the  Jews  forbidden  to  circumcise  females. 
Besides,  we  are  not  expressly  forbidden  to  baptize  unbelievers. 
nor  our  meeting  houses  and  bells.  But  will  it  hence  do  to  baptize 
them  ?     Surely  this  kind  of  reasoning  will  not  do. 

When  the  subjects  of  a  positive  rite  are  described,  and  order- 
ed to  receive  it,  this  is  a  virtual  and  plain  prohibition  of  its 
application  to  any  other  persons,  or  things. 

In  every  view  of  the  case,  therefore,  the  argument  for  the 
baptism  of  infants  grounded  on  the  Abrahamick  covenant,  or 
on  any  covenant  or  promise  in  the  Bible,  fails,  and  ought  never- 
more  to  be  plead. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  „    129 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  inconsistency  between  the  belief  and  practice  of  Pedobaptists 
respecting  the  church  membership  of  infants,  exposed. 

One  of  the  strongest  arguments  for  the  baptism  of  infants  is 
based  upon  their  supposed  membership  in  the  Christian  church, 
the  same  as  in  the  Jewish.  The  churches  being  the  same,  and 
the  membership  of  infants  being  once  established  in  the  Jewish 
Church,  must,  it  is  argued,  continue,  unless  it  be  expressly  set 
aside  ;  and,  if  it  continue,  then  they  should  be  baptized  upon 
the  ground  of  it. 

All  Pedobaptists  do  not  plead  for  the  continued  church 
membership  of  infants ;  but  most  of  them  do,  and  place  great 
reliance  upon  it.  My  object,  in  this  chapter,  will  be  to  show 
the  inconsistency  which  exists  between  their  belief  and  prac- 
tice ;  and,  also,  to  make  it  appear  that  the  argument  destroys 
itself  by  proving  too  much. 

Infants  are  baptized,  either  because  they  are  members,  or, 
to  make  them  members.  But  what  becomes  of  them  after- 
wards ?  Are  they  treated  as  members  ?  Are  they  considered 
as  brethren,  saints,  and  the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus  ?  Are  they 
considered  as  being  in  communion  ?  No,  they  are  not  permitted 
to  come  to  the  LoraVs  Supper  upon  the  ground  of  their  baptism 
and  church  membership. 

Yet  the  Lord's  Supper  is  supposed  to  come  in  the  place  of 
the  passover  as  truly  as  baptism  has  in  the  place  of  circumcision. 
And  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  children  ate  of  the  passover  as  ', 
well  as  adults.     It  was  a  household  right. 

If,  therefore,  the  Lord's  Supper  has  come  in  its  place,  and 
children  are  still  church  members,  why  are  they  not  admitted 
to  it  ?  The  argument  is  as  strong  for  their  admission  to  commun- 
ion as  to  baptism :  yea,  it  is  rather  stronger,  because  females 
wrere  admitted  to  the  passover,  although  excluded  from  circum- 
cision. If  circumcision  was  a  household  right,  so  was  the 
passover,  still  more  perfectly.  And  if  baptism  has  succeeded 
the  former  as  still  a  household  right ;  the  same  must  be  said  oi 
the  Lord's  Supper  upon  the  same  principle.    And  infants  cannot 


130  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

be  excluded  therefrom,  any  more  than  from  baptism,  unless 
their  right  be  annulled,  which  cannot  be  reasonably  pretended, 
if  the  other  right  is  not  annulled  too. 

It  is  said,  indeed,  "  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let 
him  eat."  But  this  will  not  exclude  infants  any  more  than  the 
rule  "  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,"  and 
"  if  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart  thou  mayest,"  excludes 
them  from  baptism.  The  same  plea  may  be  made  in  the  former 
case  as  in  the  latter,  that  the  rule  respects  merely  adults,  and, 
therefore,  does  not  affect  the  right  of  infants.  There  is  not,  in 
fact,  one  plea  for  infant  baptism  which  may  not  be  urged,  with 
equal  force,  for  infant  communion.  Why  then  is  the  one  prac- 
tice observed  and  the  other  not  ?  Why  is  not  the  very  same 
principle  allowed  to  operate  in  both  cases,  when  they  are  mani- 
festly parallel  ?  Here  is  a  palpable  inconsistency  on  the  part  of 
Pedobaptists.  Infants  are  considered  church  members  long 
enough  to  secure  their  baptism,  and  then  refused  the  privileges 
of  members.  They  are  treated  as  though  they  were  not  mem- 
bers. No  material  difference  is  made  between  them  and  the 
world.  They  are  said  to  be  in  the  church,  and  yet  not  in  com- 
munion. They  are  admitted  to  one  gospel  ordinance,  and  rejected 
from  the  other,  when  the  principle  adopted,  with  regard  to  both 
is  the  same.  They  are  not  numbered  among  the  brethren,  or  ad- 
mitted into  the  society  of  Christians,  till  they  make  the  same 
profession  which  is  required  of  the  unhaptized. 

They  are,  indeed,  said  to  be  under  the  watch  and  care  of  the 
church :  but  in  what  sense?  Not  as  brethren.  And  to  what 
extent  are  they  under  its  watch  and  care  ?  Not  as  deserving 
excommunication  if  not  reclaimed  by  the  ordinary  process.  For 
how  could  they  be  cast  out  of  communion  when  they  were 
never  in?  The  watch  and  care,  then,  which  are  exercised 
over  them  are  not  materially  different  from  what  are  exercised, 
or  should  be  exercised,  over  all  children  and  all  persons,  except 
that  there  is  a  special  care  to  be  exercised  by  parents  over  their 
own  children  and  households. 

Baptized  children  are  indeed  said  to  be  within  the  pale  of  the 
church.  But  what  does  this  mean  ?  Are  they  full  and  com- 
plete members  ?  No  ;  such  they  cannot  be,  without  becoming 
communicating  members.  Are  they  then  halfway  members  ?  or 
one  quarter  of  the  way  members  ?  If  so,  where  does  the  Bible 
treat  of  such  a  class  of  members  ?  Seeing  the  inconsistency 
of  this,  will  any  say  they  are  complete  members,  but  not  in  com- 
munion ?  This  is  a  contradiction.  They  cannot  be  complete 
members,  without  being  received  as  brethren,  and  as  having  & 
right  to  the  communion. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM,  131 

Christ  makes  no  difference  between  the  members  of  his 
church,  allowing  some  to  come  to  his  table,  and  others  not. 
But  he  says  to  them  all,  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me." 
And  the  apostle  Paul  says,  "  We  are  all  partakers  of  that  one 
bread."  Besides,  there  was  formerly  no  distinction  on  ac- 
count of  age  in  the  Jewish  church  in  regard  to  eating  the  pass- 
over.  Therefore,  if  the  children  of  believers  are  complete 
members  of  the  church,  they  ought  to  be  considered  communi- 
cating members.  And  the  Bible  manifestly  knows  of  no  other 
than  complete  members. 

Here,  then,  is  a  gross  inconsistency  between  the  principle  and 
practice  of  Pedobaptists  respecting  the  membership  of  infants. 
If  this  principle  were  fully  carried  out,  or  exhibited  in  practice, 
it  would  manifestly  lead  to  infant  communion.  But  if  infant 
communion  were  admitted,  the  church  would  no  longer  answer 
to  the  descriptions  which  are  given  of  it  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  the  Lord's  Supper  would  no  longer  be  such  a  feast  as 
it  is  therein  represented.  Instead  of  being  a  household  of  faith, 
or  a  society  of  Christians,  the  church  would  be  a  mixed  com- 
pany of  believers  and  acknowledged  unbelievers.  And  the  Sup- 
per, instead  of  being  the  communion  of  saints,  would  be  the 
communion  of  saints  and  acknowledged  unbelievers.  The  prin- 
ciple defended  of  late  by  Pedobaptists  themselves,  that  grace  is 
a  necessary  qualification  for  communion,  would  have  to  be  given 
up.  And  the  children  of  God  would  be  constrained  to  have 
fellowship  in  this  most  solemn  of  all  transactions  in  this  world 
with  the  acknowledged  children  of  Belial.  There  are,  indeed, 
as  the  case  now  is,  some  unsound  members,  at  least,  in  the 
church.  But  they  are  not  systematically  and  allowedly  received 
as  they  must  be  in  the  other  case. 

The  inconsistency  of  admitting  known  unbelievers  to  com- 
munion merely  because  they  have  been  baptized  in  their  infan- 
cy, seems  to  be  apparent  to  every  enlightened  and  reflecting 
mind.  It  would  be  shocking  to  men  of  piety  to  see  the  door  to 
communion  opened  so  wide  as  to  receive  them.  Hence  bap- 
tized infants  are  debarred  from  this  privilege,  notwithstanding 
the  principle  adopted  with  regard  to  their  baptism  would  re- 
quire them  to  he  admitted. 

The  absurdity  of  this  principle  with  regard  to  their  baptism 
is  not  so  readily  seen,  as  it  would  be  in  this  case,  but  in  reality 
it  is  equally  great.  For  they  are  thereby  introduced  into  a  ho- 
ly and  spiritual  society  without  the  qualifications  which  are  ex- 
pressly required ;  and  after  being  received  they  are  refused  the 
most  important  privilege  of  the  society,  and  generally  treated 
as  though  the  whole  done  at  their  baptism  was  a  nullity. 


I  32  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

The  Pedobaptists  are  often  heard  to  acknowledge,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  that  there  is  an  inconsistency  between  their  belief 
and  their  practice  in  relation  to  their  children.  They  admit 
that  they  are  justly  reproached  for  their  unfaithfulness ;  and  un- 
dertake to  concert  measures  for  a  reformation  Something,  it  is 
said,  must  be  done,  more  effectually,  for  the  children  of  the  church. 
Their  standing  must  be  more  thoroughly  ascertained  and  set- 
tled, and  tbe  instruction  and  discipline  intended  for  them  must 
be  carried  more  fully  into  effect.  Accordingly,  churches  meet 
and  pass  resolutions  ;  exhort  parents,  &c.  Presbyteries  and  as- 
sociations take  the  matter  into  consideration,  and,  after  much 
deliberation,  resolve  to  enjoin,  or  recommend,  to  the  sessions 
and  churches  to  awake  to  this  subject.  They  adopt,  and,  per- 
haps, print  a  number  of  resolutions  respecting  the  standing  of 
baptized  children,  and  the  duties  of  pastors,  sessions  and  church- 
es towards  them  ;  and  every  thing  wears  the  appearance  of 
something  being  done  to  the  purpose. 

But,  soon,  all  reverts  back  to  the  same  state  as  before.  There 
is,  indeed,  in  some  cases,  a  revival  of  parental  and  catechetical 
instruction.  But  to  prosecute  a  system  of  regular  church  disci- 
pline as  though  the  children  were  real  members,  is  found  to  be 
impracticable. 

I  do  not  state  these  things  for  the  sake  of  irritating,  or  re- 
proaching my  brethren  ;  but  to  expose  the  inconsistency  of  al- 
lowing of  the  membership  of  infants  in  Gospel  churches,  and 
the  impracticability  of  exercising  that  discipline  towards  them 
which  was  appointed  only  for  communicating  members,  or  pro- 
fessed Christians ;  and  to  show  that  this  is  the  only  discipline 
appointed  in  the  church. 

It  is  found  extremely  difficult,  in  the  outset,  to  determine  the 
real  standing  of  these  children.  All  do  not  agree  that  they  are 
actual  members  of  the  church.  Or,  if  this  be  admitted,  they 
cannot  agree  in  what  sense,  and  how  far  they  are  members  ;  and 
in  what  way  they  are  to  be  approached  and  dealt  with  ; — wheth- 
er directly,  or  through  the  medium  of  their  parents  only. 

And,  in  case  they  prove  refractory,  it  is  a  matter  of  difficulty 
to  determine  how  they  are  to  be  brought  before  the  church,  with 
which  they  have  never  personally  covenanted ;  and  how  the 
ehurch  are  finally  to  dispose  of  them  ; — whether  they  are  to 
rxcommunic  ate  them  outright;  or  inflict  some  other  censure. 

This  subject  is,  in  fact,  attended  with  almost  endless  perplex- 
ities and  difficulties.  And  I  presume  there  is  scarcely  a  Pe- 
dobaptist  to  be  found,  who  has  clearly  worked  his  way  through, 
and  devised  and  entered  upon  a  system  of  practice  with  which 
he  is  fully  satisfied.    If  the  real  truth  were  told,  the  conees- 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM.  164 

:>ion  would  often  be  made,  that  while  they  readily  bring  their 
children  into  the  church  as  members,  they  do  not  know  what 
to  do  with  them  after  they  are  in. 

And  these  embarrassments  will  remain  so  long  as  anothei 
sort  of  membership  is  plead  for  than  that  which  is  constituted 
by  professing  the  faith  of  Christ,  and  voluntarily  joining  the 
society  of  Christians;  and  so  long  as  another  sort  of  church 
discipline  is  attempted  to  be  enforced  than  that  which  was 
instituted  by  Christ  for  such  as  profess  to  be  his  disciples ;  or, 
in  other  words,  so  long  as  infants  are  baptized  upon  the  faith  oj 
their  parents. 

The  adoption  of  the  plan  of  infant  church  membership  under 
the  gospel  is  attended  with  another  difficulty,  viz  :  it  naturally 
leads  to  the  membership  of  the  wife  upon  the  faith  of  her  hus- 
band, as  well  as  of  the  children:  for  in  the  Jewish  church,  the 
membership  of  the  former  was  as  fully  determined  as  that  of 
the  latter.  The  husband,  if  a  native  Jew,  was  in  the  church 
with  his  ivhole  family.  If  a  proselyte,  he  entered  with  his 
whole  family,  ivife,  children  and  servants.  This  is  too  evident 
to  be  denied.  If,  therefore,  the  memoership  of  the  children 
continues  for  the  father's  sake,  that  of  the  wife  must  continue 
also;  and,  hence,  the  latter  must  be  baptized,  as  .well  as  the 
children,  upon  her  husband's  faith.  The  consequence  is 
unavoidable.  This,  therefore,  tends  further  to  show  the  incon- 
sistency complained  of,  and  the  falsity  of  the  argument  before 
us,  which,  if  it  proves  any  thing,  proves  altogether  too  much  ; 
and,  consequently,  proves  nothing. 


it 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM*  135 


CHAPTER  XV. 

Containing  additional  evidence  that  there  is  such  a  change  in  the 
constitution  of  the  church  under  the  gospel  as  excludes  the 
membership  of  infants. 

The  church  membership  of  infants  under  the  present  dis- 
pensation is  not  held  by  all  Pedobaptists,  as  before  observed : 
and  hence  such  as  do  not  hold  to  it  must  admit  of  the  very 
change  now  plead  for,  seeing  they  were,  evidently,  members 
of  the  Jewish  church. 

But  the  majority  of  this  denomination  maintain  that  their 
membership  is  still  retained,  and  we  are  boldly  challenged  to 
make  it  appear  that  it  has  ever  been  set  aside. 

Much  has  already  been  advanced  in  proof  of  the  discontinu- 
ance of  infant  membership ;  and  much  more  might  be  advanced, 
were  it  not  for  protracting  this  discussion  too  far.  I  must  be 
contented  with  citing  and  commenting  on  a  few  more  passages, 
and  referring  to  others. 

The  first  I  shall  notice  is  Isaiah  iv.  2,  3,  4 :  "  In  that  day 
shall  the  branch  of  the  Lord  be  beautiful  and  glorious,  and  the 
fruit  of  the  earth  shall  be  excellent  and  comely  for  them  that 
are  escaped  of  Israel.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  he  that 
is  left  in  Zion,  and  he  that  remaineth  in  Jerusalem,  shall  be  called 
holy,  even  every  one  that  is  written  among  the  living  in  Jerusalem  ; 
when  the  Lord  shall  have  washed  away  the  tilth  of  the  daugh- 
ters of  Zion,  and  shall  have  purged  the  blood  of  Jerusalem 
from  the  midst  thereof,  by  the  spirit  of  judgement,  and  by  the 
spirit  of  burning." 

These  words  manifestly  refer  to  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  and 
denote  such  a  change  in  the  church,  here  figuratively  called  Zion 
and  Jerusalem,  as  excludes  the  membership  of  infants,  as  such. 
The  clause,  "  them  that  are  escaped  of  Israel,"  denote  "  them 
that  are  escaped  from  the  corruptions  that  are  in  the  world, 
through  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour."  They 
plainly  intimate  that  the  Messiah's  kingdom  should  consist  of  a 
select  company — the  redeemed  of  the  Lord.  This  is  expressed 
still  plainer  by  the  clause  "  he  that  is  left  in  Zion,  and  he  that 
remaineth  in  Jerusalem,  shall  be  called  holy,  even  every  one 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

that  is  written  among  the  living  in  Jerusalem. "  Here  a  great 
sifting,  purging  out,  or  pruning  off,  is  foretold  ;  in  fact,  a  new 
organization  of  the  church  ;  so  that  he  that  was  left  was  to  be 
called  holy  in  a  higher  sense  than  the  term  had  been  previously 
applied  to  the  nation,  viz :  renewed  and  sanctified  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  This  is  clearly  determined  to  be  the  sense  by  the  ex- 
planatory words,  "  even  every  one  that  is  written  among  the 
living  in  Jerusalem,"  which  means  unquestionably  not  every 
one  that  should  literally  subsist ;  but  every  one  v^ho  should  be 
quickened  by  the  Spirit,  or  be  bom  of  God.  Those,  therefore, 
who  should  be  left  in  the  church,  would  be  such  as  are  madt- 
alive  unto  God  by  a  spiritual  renovation  ;  which  implies  that 
the  residue  should  be  excluded,  or  left  out.  Hence,  infant 
membership  has,  of  course,  ceased. 

Again;  chap.  xxvi.  1,  2:  "  In  that  day  shall  this  song  be 
sung  in  the  land  of  Judah;  we  have  a  strong  city;  salvation 
will  God  appoint  for  walls  and  bulwarks.  Open  ye  the  gates, 
that  the  righteous  nation  which  keepeth  the  truth  may  enter  in." 
This  strong  city  is  not  the  literal  Jerusalem,  but  the  figurative  ; 
the  gospel  church,  which  St.  Paul  calls  "  the  city  of  the  living 
God."  The  direction,  to  open  the  gates  to  a  the  righteous  na- 
tion which  keepeth  the  truth,"  is  a  plain  indication  that  such 
only  should  be  considered  as  proper  members  ;  and  hence  infant 
membership  is  excluded.  It  is  true,  the  in/ants  of  believers  are 
not  expressly  prohibited  from  entering.  Neither  are  adult  un- 
believers. But  the  command  to  receive  those  of  a  particular 
character — the  righteous,  is  a  virtual  exclusion  of  the  rest.  To 
receive  other  members  than  those  described,  would  lead  to 
great  corruption  and  confusion. 

Again:  chap.  lxii.  1,2,  12:  "  For  Zion's  sake  I  will  not 
hold  my  peace,  and  for  Jerusalem's  sake  I  will  not  rest,  until 
the  righteousness  thereof  go  forth  as  brightness,  and  the  salva- 
tion thereof  as  a  lamp  that  burnetii.  And  the  Gentiles  shall  see 
thy  righteousness,  and  all  kings  thy  glory  :  and  thou  shalt  be 
called  by  a  new  name,  which  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  shall  name. 
And  they  shall  call  them  the  holy  people,  the  redeemed  of  the 
Lord  :  and  thou  shalt  be  called,  Sought  out,  a  city  not  forsaken." 
This  description  of  the  gospel  church  is  such  as  plainly  excludes 
infants.  The  a.ldress  is  to  the  spiritual  Zion.  u  Thou  shalt  be 
called,"  says  the  piophet,  u  by  a  new  name,"  which  can  be  no 
other  than  "that  of  "  Christians,"  which  was  a  title  first  given  to 
die  disciples  at  Anlioch.  But  who  were  called  Christians  ?  Not 
the  bo^y  of  the  Jews,  nor  the  infants  of  believers  ;  but  believers 
themseloes  only.  "  The  disciples  were  called  Christians  first  in 
'  \ntioch."     The   disciples  alluded  to  were  Hellenist  Jews,  o' 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM.  137 

Jews-,  by  birth,  that  spake  the  Greek  language,  and  not  Gentiles 
as  many  imagine,  though  Gentile  believers  were  afterwards 
added.  The  giving  of  this  title  to  the  followers  of  Christ  at 
this  time,  (which  was  done  by  a  divine  suggestion  as  the  origi- 
nal word  imports)  was  a  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy.  And, 
hence,  the  church,  at  the  time  alluded  to,  was  to  be  composed 
of  Christians,  u  which  are  not  born  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will 
of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  The  change 
predicted,  then,  was  one  that  would  exclude  infants.  That  this 
is  the  meaning  is  increasingly  evident  from  the  closing  words : 
*  And  they  shall  call  them  the  holy  people  ;  the  redeemed  of  the 
Lord;  and  thou  shalt  be  called,  Sought  out,  a  city  not  forsaken ," 
which  terms  clearly  prove  that  the  New  Testament  church 
should  be  a  select  company,  called  out  from  the  world,  and  pro- 
fessing and  appearing  to  be  the  children  of  God ;  and  not  con>- 
sisting  of  believers  and  their  unbelieving  children. 

I  would  here  refer  the  reader  to  the  following  passages  in  the 
Old  Testament,  which  teach  the  same  doctrine,  and  point  for- 
ward to  the  same  change  in  the  constitution  of  the  church : — 
Deut.  xviii.  15,  18,  19;  Isaiah,  xxvii.  6,  12,  and  xlix.  20,  22, 
and  liv.  13,  and  Ixv.  15  ;  Ezekiel,  xxxiv.  22,  23  ;  Amos,  ix.  9, 
10,  11,12;  Haggai,  ii.  6,  7,  8,  9,  and  Zechariah,  xi.  7,  10,  11. 

The  following  passages  from  the  New  Testament,  together 
with  the  whole  Gospel  history,  are  in  exact  accordance  with 
the  above  predictions  and  explanations;  viz.  Mat.  iii.  8,  9,  10: 
"  Bring  forth  therefore  fruits  meet  for  repentance.  And  think 
not  to  say  within  yourselves,  we  have  Abraham  to  our  father : 
for  I  say  unto  you,  that  God  is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up 
children  unto  Abraham.  And  now  also  the  axe  is  laid  unto  the 
root  of  the  trees ;  therefore  every  tree  that  bringeth  not  forth 
good  fruit  is  hewn  down  and  cast  into  the  fire." 

This  is  a  plain  intimation  that  a  standing  in  the  Redeemer's 
kingdom,  which  was  about  to  he  set  up,  could  not  be  claimed 
by  birth;  that  it  was  to  be  a  spiritual  and  holy  kingdom  ;  and 
that  there  was  to  be  a  breaking  off  of  the  unsound  branches,  re- 
taining none  but  the  fruitful  ones  ;  all  purporting  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  new  order  of  things, 

Again  ;  chap.  xxii.  1 1,  12,  "  And  when  the  King  came  in  to 
see  the  guests,  he  saw  there  a  man  which  had  not  on  a  wedding 
garment:  And  he  saith  unto  him,  friend;  how  earnest  thou  in 
hither  not  having  on  a  wedding  garment  ?  And  he  was  speech- 
less." In  the  parable  from  which  these  words  are  quoted,  the 
calling  of  the  guests  to  the  wedding,  -represents  the  calling  of 
members  into  the  Gospel  church.  The  blame  which  is  here 
reflected  upon  the  man  who  came  into  the  King's  house  without 

12* 


138  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISE. 

-I  wedding  garment,  shows  that  be  had  no  warrant  to  enter  withour 
one.  He  is  not  reprimanded  simply  for  not  having  a  wedding 
garment,  but  for  coming  in  among  the  guests  without  one^  This  be- 
ing applied  to  the  church,  as  Christ  intended,  shows  that  it  is  a  so- 
ciety which  ought  to  be  inaccessible  to  the  unbeliever.  Presi- 
dent Edwards  very  justly  adduces  this  as  one  of  his  strongest 
proofs  tba|  grace  is  a  necessary  qualification  for  communion. — ( 
The  Gospel  church  is  a  select  company,  and  to  give  any  a  right 
to  enter  it,  they  must  have  on  the  wedding  garment  of  Christ's 
righteousness,  which  is  received  by  faith.  Whoever  enters 
without  it,  is  not  only  blamed  for  being  an  unbeliever,  but  for. 
the  act  of  coming  in.  "  Huv,  earnest  thou  in  hither,  not  having 
on  a  wedding  garment  ?"  But  if  infant  membership  is  contin- 
ued in  the  church,  (hen  unbelievers  are  placed  in  it  by. God's 
appointment  How,  then,  can  they  be  to  blame  for  coming  in  ? 
If  the  church  is  a  school,  or  nursery,  for  the  unconverted  chil- 
dren of  believers,  as  this  doctrine  supposes,  then,  none  of  them 
can  be  to  biame  simply  for  being  there.  The  Jewish  children 
were  never  to  blame  for  being  in  that  church  But  the  man 
here  intended  to  be  described,  is  blamed  for  coming  into  the 
Gospel  church.  And  this  cannot  be  consistently  restricted  to  the 
unsound  adult  professor  ;  but  it  describes  the  case  of  all  grace- 
less members  The  whole  representation  goes  to  show  that 
the  Gospel  church  consists  of  professors  of  religion,  and  no  oth- 
er, and  that  grace  is  an  indispensable  gualification  to  enter. — 
None  are  born  members  as  in  the  Jewish  church  ;  and  none 
should  be  received,  hut  such  as  appear  to  be  Christians,  as  none 
others  will  be  approved.  The  church  is  no  longer  national ; 
but  consists  of  believers  of  all  nations.  And  this  change  of  its 
national  character  plainly  excludes  the  membership  of  infants. 

Again;  Eph.  ii.  14,  15,  a  For  he  is  our  peace,  who  hath 
made  both  one,  and  hath  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  parti- 
tion between  us  j  having  abolished  in  his  flesh  the  enmity,  even 
the  law  of  commandments  contained  in  ordinances  ;  for  to  make 
in  himself  of  twain  one  new  man,  so  making  peace  ;  and  that  he  . 
might  reconcile  I  oth  unto  God  in  one  body  by  the  cross,  having 
slain  the  enmity  tiiereby."  "  Of  twain,"  Christ  is  here  said  to 
have  made  u  on*  new  man;"  and  he  did  this  "by  reconciling 
both  unto  God  in  one  body  by  the  cross,"  which  clearly  shows 
that  they  become  one  by  becoming  believers  in  Christ,  and  in 
no  other  way.  This  consideration,  then,  determines  the  char- 
acter of  this  "  new  man,"  ox  Gospel  church*  It  is  composed 
ot believers  only ;  and,  hence  infant  membership  is  no  part  of 
its  constitution.  Doctor  Guise,  though  a  learned  Pedobap- 
tist,  in  his  paraphrase  on  this  passage,  introduces  the  apostle 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  139 

as  saying,  "  Christ  has  abolished  these  (the  ceremonial  pre- 
cepts,) to  the  end  that,  as  the  great  Head,  in  whom  all  things 
were  to  be  gathered  in  one,  he  might  unite  these  distant  par- 
ties to  each  other  ;  and  that  he  might  make  out  of  both,  one 
church,  formed,  as  new  creatures,  according  to  the  image  of 
God  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  formed  together 
for  Gospel  worship  a  ad  new  obedience,  and  equally  partakers, 
by  a  new  constitution  under  him,  of  all  the  blessings  that  per- 
tain to  the  kingdom  of  grace  in  this  world,  and  the  kingdom  of 
glory  in  that  which  is  to  come.  In  this  manner  he  has  brought 
about  an  entire  harmony  and  friendship  between  believers  of  all 
nations  among  themselves  as  one  spiritual  body,  they  being  united 
by  faith  and  love  to  him,  and  to  one  another  in  and  through  him.57 
This  is  an  admirable  description  of  the  Gospel  church.  But 
how  it  consists  with  the  doctor's  notion  of  infant  membership 
elsewhere  expressed,  it  is  hard  to  conceive.  The  new  constitu- 
tion which  he  admits  the  church  is  placed  under,  manifestly 
excludes  the  membership  of  infants. 

In  addition  to  these  passages,  the  reader  is  referred  to  John, 
viii.  39;  Romans,  ix.  6,  7,  8,  24,25,26,27;  Heb.  xii.lt,  12  : 
Gal.  iii.  26,  27,  28y  and  v.  6  ;  and  I.  Pet.  ii.  9, 10. 

Infants,  therefore,  are  not  to  be  baptized  on  the  ground  of 
their  membership  in  the  Gospel  church;  because  iv  does  not 
exist. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  141 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

The  argument  in  favour  of  Infant  Baptism  from  Ecclesiastical 
History,  examined  and  shown  to  be  insufficient  and  inconclu- 


I  shall  be  brief  in  my  remarks  on  the  subject  of  this  chap- 
ter, partly  because  I  should  otherwise  transcend  ray  limits,  and 
partly  because  I  consider  the  scriptures  as  the  proper  source  of 
proof,  and  seeing  we  do  not  find  infant  baptism  there,  it  ought 
to  be  rejected,  though  we  should  find  ever  so  much  in  its  fa- 
vour in  the  records  of  uninspired  men.  It  illy  becomes  those 
who  allow  the  scriptures  to  be  a  sufficient,  and  the  only  infalli- 
ble rule  of  faith  and  practice,  when  they  fail  to  prove  a  point 
from  them,  to  resort  to  church  history.  There  is  manifestly 
too  much  stress  laid  upon  this  argument  in  the  present  case. 

That  there  is  mention  made  of  the  baptism  of  little  children 
in  ecclesiastical  history,  as  early  as  the  forepart  of  the  third 
century,  and  claimed  as  a  tradition  from  the  apostles,  will  nptbe 
denied,  although  the  first  of  the  fathers  who  makes  decided 
mention  of  the  practice,  viz.  Tatullian,  manifestly  opposed  it. 
His  words  are  these,  viz.  u  The  delay  of  baptism  may  be  more 
advantageous,  either  on  account  of  the  condition,  disposition, 
or  age  of  any  person,  especially  in  reference  to  little  children. 
For  what  necessity  is  there  that  the  sponsors  should  be  brought 
into  danger  ?  Because  either  they  themselves  may  fail  of 
their  promises  by  death,  or  be  deceived  by  the  growth  of  evil 
dispositions.  The  Lord  indeed  says,  do  not  forbid  them  to  come 
to  me.  Let  them  therefore  come,  when  they  are  grown  up — 
when  then  can  understand — when  they  are  taught  to  what  they 
are  to  come.  Why  should  this  innocent  age  hasten  to  the  re- 
mission of  sins?  Men  act  more  cautiously  in  worldly  things, 
so  that  divine  things  are  here  intrusted  with  whom  worldly 
things  are  not.  Let  them  know  how  to  seek  salvation,  that  you 
may  appear  to  give  to  one  that  asketh." 

Some  testimonies,  previous  to  this,  are  attempted  to  be  pro- 
duced, but  none  of  them  are  so  explicit  as  to  be  relied  on. 
And  as  to  this,  although  it  recognises  the  practice  of  baptizing 
little  children,  it  surely  does  not  give  it  countenance ;  but  the 


142  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 

author  clearly  dissuaded  from  it.  He  certainly  reasons  very 
much  like  an  Anti-Pedobaptist.  His  mode  of  speaking  im- 
plies that  the  practice  was  of  recent  date :  neither  does  it  de- 
cidedly acknowledge  the  existence  of  infant  baptism  in  the 
sense  afterwards  adopted.  It  rather  appears  to  convey  the  idea 
that  some  began  to  baptize  children  at  too  early  an  age,  although 
not  strictly  upon  the  faith  of  their  parents.  The  parents,  as 
parents,  are  not  spoken  of  as  having  any  thing  to  do  in  the 
case  ;  but  sponsors  were  provided  to  answer  for  the  children,  be- 
cause they  were  too  young  to  give  the  requisite  answers  them- 
selves. This  all  looks  as  though,  from  a  false  view  of  the  ne- 
cessity and  benefit  of  baptism,  they  began  to  encourage  appli- 
cations from  children  before  they  were  capable  of  a  regular  pro- 
fession of  their  faith  ;  and  to  remedy  their  incapacity,  sponsors 
came  forward  to  answer  for  them.  And  from  this  arose,  at  length, 
the  practice  of  baptizing  mere  infants  upon  the  account  of  their 
parents. 

Venema,  who  was  a  learned  writer,  says,  as  quoted  by  Pen- 
gilly,  that  "  Tertullian  has  no  where  mentioned  Pedobaptism 
among  the  traditions  or  customs  of  the  church  that  were  pub- 
lickly  received  and  usually  observed."  The  inference  from 
which  U,  that  no  such  tradition,  or  custom,  was  then  publickly 
received  and  generally  observed,  although  the  above  quotation 
implies  that  the  practice  of  baptizing  children  at  too  early  ait 
age,  without  proper  evidence  of  faith,  began  to  prevail. 

The  next  writer  who  speaks  of  this  practice  is  Origin,  whc 
flourished  a  little  after  Tertullian,  i.  e.  in  the  former  part  of  the 
third  century,  who  says,  that  "  the  church  received  a  tradition 
from  the  apostles  to  give  baptism  to  little  children  also."  Here 
again  the  proof  is  not  decisive  that  mere  infants -axe  meant  who 
were  baptized  on  the  faith  of  their  parents.  The  terms  little 
children,  may  mean  no  more  than  very  young  persons,  baptized 
upon  their  own  account,  though  improperly,  as  above  stated,  for 
the  want  of  the  requisite  qualifications ;  and  afterwards  he 
might  have  been  understood  to  mean  mere  infants. 

After  Origin,  Cyprian,  who  lived  about  the  middle  of  this 
century,  speaks  more  definitely  of  infant  baptism  ;  and  sub- 
sequently, Austin,  who  lived  in  the  fifth  century,  when  no  one 
doubts  that  the  practice,  as  now  understood,  generally  pre- 
vailed. 

In  relation  to  the  early  introduction  of  infant  baptism,  Bish- 
op Taylor,  as  quoted  by  Pengilly,  affirms  that  "  there  is  no 
pretence  of  tradition  that  the  church  in  all  ages  did  baptize  all 
the  infants  of  Christian  parents.  It  is  more  certain  that  they 
did  not  do  it  always,  than  that  they  did  it  in  the  first  age.     St- 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  143 

Ambrose,  St.  Hieroni,  and  St.  Austin,  were  born  of  Christian 
parents,  and  yet  not  baptized  until  the  full  age  of  a  man  and 
more."  He  says  further,  "  that  there  is  a  tradition  from  the 
apostles  to  do  so,  (i.  e.  to  baptize  infants,)  relies  but  on  two  wit- 
nesses, Origin  and  Austin,  and  the  latter  having  received  it  from 
the  former,  it  relies  wholly  on  one  single  testimony,  which  is  but 
a  pitiful  argument  to  prove  a  tradition  apostolical."  He  says, 
moreover,  "  that  it  was  not  so,  (i.e.  not  an  apostolical  tradition,) 
is  but  too  certain,  if  there  be  any  truth  in  the  words  of  Ludo- 
vicus  Vives."  This  last  writer  lived  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
and  is  quoted  by  Dr.  Gill  as  saying,  that  "  formerly  no  person 
was  brought  to  the  holy  baptistery,  till  he  was  of  adult  age,  and 
when  he  both  understood  what  that  mystical  water  meant,  and 
desired  to  be  washed  in  it,  yea,  desired  it  more  than  once."  And 
in  reference  to  the  Waldenses,  he  further  says :  "  I  hear,  in 
some  cities  of  Italy,  the  old  custom  is  in  a  great  measure  pre- 
served." 

This  is  one  among  many  testimonies,  that  the  ancient  Wal- 
denses, who  were  witnesses  for  the  truth  in  the  dark  ages  oi 
popery,  practised  believers'  baptism  only. 

I  am  sensible  that  in  opposition  to  these  testimonies,  writers 
of  eminence  might  be  quoted  who  maintain  that  infant  baptism 
was  affirmed  to  be  received  as  a  tradition  from  the  apostles  by 
men  who  lived  at  so  early  a  period  of  the  Christian  era,  that 
they  must  have  known  whether  the  fact  were  so  or  not. 

But  this  merely  goes  to  show  what  is  asserted  by  the  ablest 
judges  to  be  the  fact,  that  when  we  undertake  to  survey  the  peri- 
od in  which  the  first  mention  is  made  of  this  practice,  we  are 
involved  in  absurdity  and  doubt.  The  testimonies  concerning 
many  of  the  transactions  of  those  early  ages,  are  vague  and 
contradictory.  Besides,  many  of  the  writings  of  the  early  fa- 
thers are  lost — others  have  been  interpolated  and  corrupted  by 
transcribers  and  translators.  Moreover,  most  of  those  whose 
testimonies  are  relied  on  were  tinctured  with  a  vain  philosophy 
and  the  reigning  superstition,  which  were  carried  so  far  as  to 
maintain  that  it  was  even  right  to  deceive  to  promote  the  good 
of  the  church,  so  that  their  testimony  in  the  case  should  be  re- 
ceived with  caution. 

It  is  no  decisive  evidence  that  the  practice  in  question  was 
truly  apostolical  because  it  is  mentioned  so  early  and  claimed 
as  such,  and  because  there  was  not  more  express  mention  made 
of  the  opposition  which  must  have  been  raised  against  its  in- 
troduction, if  it  had  been  an  innovation.  For  the  introduction 
was  gradual,  probably  in  the  way  already  stated.  Also,  at,  and 
previous  9  to  the  period  alluded  to,  the  sentiment  prevailed  that 


Ml  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

water  baptism  was  necessary  to  salvation,  and  that  it  had  the 
virtue  of  washing  away  original  sin,  and  of  procuring  divine 
forgiveness.  This  would  naturally  induce  the  belief  that  it 
could  not  have  been  the  design  of  Christ  to  exclude  infants 
therefrom,  and  consequently  from  salvation.  And  hence  they 
would  at  length  venture  to  confer  what  they  conceived  to  be 
so  great  a  benefit  upon  the  children. 

The  difficulty  arising  from  there  not  being  more  express 
mention  made  of  opposition  to  this  practice,  is  by  no  means 
insurmountable.  It  has  already  been  shown  that  Tertullian 
did  make  opposition  to  it — besides,  if  there  had  been  no  record 
of  any  opposition,  the  case  would  not  have  been  peculiar.  For 
there  is  no  record  of  any  opposition  being  made  at  first  to  the 
practice  of  infant  communion,  introduced  about  the  same  time  with 
infant  baptism,  and  manifestly  on  the  same  ground,  viz.  its  being 
essential  to  salvation.  It  is  evident  that  this  practice  prevailed 
for  a  season,  but  who  introduced  it,  or  who  opposed  it,  we  are 
not  told.  A  tradition  was  also  claimed  in  those  early  times  in 
favour  of  Episcopacy  ;  but  we  cannot  ascertain  its  particular  or- 
igin any  more  than  in  the  case  of  infant  baptism.  Accordingly 
Bishop  Prideaux  says,  that  6i  Pedobaptism  rests  on  no  other  di- 
vine right  than  Episcopacy."  Yet  many  Protestants  reject  the 
latter  because  they  do  not  find  it  in  the  Bible  ;  and  for  the  same 
reason  we  should  reject  the  former.  Besides,  there  is  no  no- 
tice taken  of  any  opposition  being  made,  at  first,  to  the  admission 
of  sponsors  in  baptism,  nor  of  the  person,  or  church,  that  first  in- 
troduced them.  Nor  have  we  any  account  of  the  origin  of  the 
difference  which  then  prevailed  in  regard  to  the  proper  time  of 
keeping  Easter.  All  we  know  of  the  case  is,  that  such  a  dif- 
ference existed,  and  was  the  occasion  of  warm  disputes  between 
the  eastern  and  western  sections  of  the  church. 

The  want  of  information  respecting  the  introduction  of  these 
several  articles,  or  respecting  the  opposition  which  was  raised 
against  them,  will  goto  relieve  the  difficulty  pertaining  to  the 
introduction  of  infant  baptism,  by  placing  all  on  the  same  ground. 

Although  there  is  nothing  very  express  on  record,  in  opposi- 
tion to  infant  baptism,  at  the  time  the  first  mention  is  made  of 
it,  except  what  has  been  quoted  from  Tertullian,  there  are 
subsequent  accounts  of  this  opposition,  which  show  that  the 
date  of  it  may  be  carried  much  further  back  than  many  are 
willing  to  acknowledge. 

Doctor  Gill  affirms,  that "  there  were  many  and  great  debates 
about  infant  baptism  at  the  first  of  the  reformation,  years  before 
he  affair  of  Munster." 

He  says,  the  Bishop  of  Aries  in  Provence  wrote  to  Pope  Ira- 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  145 

nocentthe  third,  under  whom  the  Lateran  council  was  held  in 
1215,  that  "  some  hereticks  there  had  taught,  that  it  was  to  no 
purpose  to  baptize  children,  since  they  could  have  no  forgive- 
ness of  sins  thereby,  as  having  no  faith,  charity,"  &c.     » 

Further ;  that  "  there  was  a  people  called  German  heTeticks, 
or  publicans,  who  came  into  England  from  Gascoigne  in  the 
year  1166,  or  a  little  before,  who  asserted  that  infants  are  not  to 
be  baptized,  till  they  come  to  the  age  of  understanding.  These 
were  headed  by  Gerbardusand  Dulcinus." 

Also,  that  St.  Bernard,  in  a  letter  to  the  Earl  of  St.  Gyles, 
in  1147,  brings  the  following  charge  against  Henry,  from  whom 
the  people  denominated  Henricians  were  called,  viz.  "  the  in- 
fants of  Christians  are  hindered  from  the  life  of  Christ,  the 
grace  of  baptism  being  denied  them."  And  that,  about  the 
same  time,  the  same  author,  in  his  treatise  upon  the  Canticles, 
notices  a  people  called  Apostolici,  (probably  the  followers  of 
Henry,)  and  charges  them  with  saying  that  infants  are  not  to  be 
baptized."     He  says,  "  they  laugh  at  us  for  baptizing  infants.'5 

Further  :  The  Doctor  says,  that  Peter  D.  Bruis,  and  Henry, 
his  follower,  both  opposed  infant  baptism.  That  Peter,  the 
abbot  of  Clugny,  who  wrote  against  them,  charges  them  with 
saying,  that  "  infants  are  not  baptized,  or  saved,  by  the  faith  of 
another  ;  but  ought  to  be  baptized  and  saved  by  their  own 
faith  ;  or  that  baptism  without  their  own  faith  does  not  save  ; 
and  that  those  that  are  baptized  in  infancy,  when  grown  up, 
should  be  baptized  again  ;  nor  are  they  then  re-baptized,  but 
rather  rightly  baptized."  Dr.  Wall  allows  that  these  two  men 
were  Anti-Pedobaptists,  and  their  followers  were  very  nume- 
rous. 

Doctor  Gill  further  states,  that  Evervinus,  of  the  diocess  of 
Cologne,  wrote  a  letter  to  St.  Bernard,  in  1140,  giving  an  ac- 
count of  some  hereticks  lately  discovered  in  that  country,  con- 
cerning whom  he  says  :  "  They  condemn  the  sacraments  ex- 
cept baptism  only,  and  this  only  in  those  who  are  come  to  age, 
who  they  say  are  baptized  by  Christ  himself,  whoever  be  the  mi- 
nister of  the  sacrament.  They  do  not  believe  in  infant  baptism, 
alleging  that  place  of  the  gospel,  "  he  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved." 

That  "  Bruno  and  Berengarius,  about  the  year  1035,  opposed 
infant  baptism." 

That  Deododwin,  Bishop  of  Liege,  in  a  letter  to  Henry  I. 
king  of  England,  says,  "  There  is  a  report  come  out  of  France, 
and  which  goes  through  all  Germany,  that  these  two  do  maintain 
that  the  Lord's  body  (the  Host)  is  not  the  body,  but  a  shadow 
snd  figure  of  the  Lord's  body,  and  that  thev  do  disannul  lawful 

13 


146  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

marriages  ;  and,  as  far  as  in  them  lies,  overthrow  the  baptism  of 
infants." 

And  that  "  Guudulphus  and  his  followers,  about  this  time3 
opposed  infant  baptism."  Dr.  Milner  admits  that  "  this  people 
objected  particularly  to  the  baptism  of  infants,  because  they 
wrere  incapable  of  understanding,  or  confessing  the  truth." 
They  are  said  to  have  been  considerably  numerous  in  Flanders 
and  elsewhere,  and  they  were  condemned  in  a  council  held  at 
Arras  in  1025. 

It  appears,  also,  that  the  Lollards  in  England  were  opposers 
of  infant  baptism  ;  for  it  is  said  they  maintained  "  that  infants 
be  sufficiently  baptized  if  their  parents  be  baptized  before 
them." 

Yea,  it  appears  from  the  concession  of  Dr.  Mosheim,  a  learn- 
ed Pedobaptist,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  that  the  origin  of 
this  opposition  to  infant  baptism  cannot  be  fixed  at  any  period 
short  of  that  of  the  apostles.  He  says :  u  The  true  origin  of 
that  sect  which  acquired  the  denomination  of  Anabaptists,  by 
their  administering  anew  the  rite  of  baptism  to  those  who  came 
over  to  their  communion,  and  derived  that  of  Mennonites,  from 
that  famous  man  to  whom  they  owe  the  greatest  part  of  their 
felicity,  is  hid  in  the  remote  depths  of  antiquity,  and  of  course, 
is  extremely  difficult  to  be  ascertained."  He  further  says: 
"  It  may  be  observed,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  Mennonites  are 
not  entirely  mistaken  when  they  boast  of  their  descent  from 
the  Waldenses,  Petrobrussians,  and  other  ancient  sects  who 
are  usually  considered  witnesses  of  the  truth  in  the  times  of 
universal  darkness  and  superstition.  Before  the  rise  of  Luther 
and  Calvin,  there  lay  concealed  in  almost  all  the  countries  of 
Europe,  particularly  in  Bohemia,  Moravia,  Switzerland,  and 
Germany,  many  persons  who  adhered  tenaciously  to  the  follow- 
ing doctrine,  which  the  Waldenses,  Wickliffites,  and  Hussites 
had  maintained,  some  in  a  more  disguised,  and  some  in  a  more 
open  and  publick  manner,  viz.  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  or 
the  visible  church  he  established  on  earth,  was  an  assembly  of 
true  and  real  saints,  and  ought  to  be  inaccessible  to  the  wicked 
and  unrighteous,  and  also  exempt  from  all  those  institutions 
which  human  prudence  suggests  to  oppose  the  progress  of  ini- 
quity, or  to  correct  and  reform  transgressors.  This  maxim  is 
the  true  source  of  all  the  peculiarities  that  are  to  be  found  in 
the  religious  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Mennonites  ;  and  it 
is  most  certain  that  the  greatest  part  of  these  peculiarities  were 
approved  of  by  many  of  those  who,  before  the  dawn  of  the  re- 
formation, entertained  the  notion  already  mentioned  relating  to 
the  visible  church  of  Christ. " 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  147 

This  is  virtually  admitting  that  the  Waldenses  were  ancient- 
ly Anti-Pedobaptists,  or  at  least  many  of  them.  This  also  is 
capable  of  other  proof.  Of  course,  the  opposition  to  infant 
baptism  is  carried  back  to  the  seventh  century,  for  that  is  the  pe- 
riod in  which  these  people  "  fled  into  the  valleys."  This  view 
of  the  subject  is  corroborated  by  the  testimony  of  Reinerous 
Sacco,  as  quoted  by  Mosheim's  translator,  in  a  note,  vol.  iii.  p. 
316,  "  who  lived  about  eighty  years  after  Peter  Waldo,  (i.  e. 
in  the  twelfth  century,)  and  who  persecuted  these  people,  and 
speaks  of  them  as  a  sect  which  had  flourished  above  Jive  hun- 
dred years,  (which  term  carries  us  back  to  the  seventh  century.) 
Nay,  he  mentions  authors  of  note  who  make  their  antiquity 
amount  to  the  apostolick  age." 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  infant  baptism  has  been  long  and 
faithfully  opposed — opposed  as  well  as  maintained,  by  eminent 
men — men  that  have  forsaken  all  for  Christ :  and  that  no  peri- 
od short  of  the  apostolick  age  can  be  assigned  when  this  oppo- 
sition first  commenced.  Although  the  baptism  of  infants,  or,  at 
least,  of  small  children  before  they  could  give  a  reason  of  their 
hope,  began  to  be  practised  in  the  forepart  of  the  third  century, 
and  subsequently,  for  a  long  time,  appears  to  have  generally  pre- 
vailed, it  does  not  appear  that  it  has  ever  been  practised  univer- 
sally. There  is  reason  to  believe  there  have  always  been  op- 
posers  to  it,  when  it  has  been  carried  to  its  greatest  height.  And 
as  to  the  practice  of  the  truly  primitive  church,  I  have  abun- 
dantly shown  from  the  scripture  records  themselves,  that  it  was 
altogether  against  it,  and  in  favour  only  of  the  baptism  of  be- 
lievers. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  149 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

Containing  remarks  on  Female  Communion,  and  the  Change  of 
the  Sabbath, 

Many  allege  that  the  foregoing  view  of  the  nature  of  posi- 
tive institutions,  and  the  demand  which  has  been  made  for  an 
explicit  warrant  in  the  case  of  infant  baptism,  will  lead  to  the 
exclusion  of  females  from  the  Lord's  table,  and  to  the  denial  of 
the  change  of  the  Sabbath. 

In  regard  to  the  first,  it  is  plead  that  there  is  no  explicit  war- 
rant for  the  admission  of  females  to  communion  ;  but  that  their 
right  is  based  merely  on  inference  and  analogy — the  same  kind 
of  proof  which  is  offered  in  the  other  case.  This  statement, 
however,  will  be  found,  on  examination,  to  be  incorrect. 

An  explicit  warrant  is  a  plain  and  positive  expression  of  the 
will  of  Christ  in  the  institution  itself  which  contains  the  duty, 
or  a  plain  apostolick  example  in  relation  to  the  case. 

And  such  a  warrant  is  manifestly  furnished  in  regard  to  fe- 
male communion.     For, 

1.  The  order  to  attend  upon  the  supper  was  given  to  disciples 
without  regard  to  sex.  Our  Lord  manifestly  brake  bread  to  the 
twelve,  at  first,  not  as  apostles ,  nor  as  ordinary  ministers ,  nor  as 
men  in  distinction  from  women  ;  but  as  disciples.  The  occasion 
was  one  on  which  he  was  present,  with  his  own  particular  fam- 
ily, which  consisted  of  the  twelve,  for  the  purpose  of  celebrat- 
ing the  passover  according  to  custom.  To  these,  merely  in  the 
character  of  disciples,  he  brake  the  symbolick  bread,  saying. 
"  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me."  This  command  obviously 
includes  other  disciples — yea,  all  others,  down  to  his  second 
coming,  without  regard  to  sex.  "  In  Christ,  there  is  neither 
male  nor  female  ;"  but  all  <c  are  one." 

2.  It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  this  ordinance  was  celebrated 
by  the  whole  church  of  Jerusalem,  which  consisted  of  males  and 
females*  * 

That  it  consisted,  in  part,  of  females,  appears  from  the  consi- 
deration that  the  assembly  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  promts- 
mous  ;  that,  agreeably  to  the  prophecy  of  Joel,  referred  to  on 

13* 


150  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM* 

that  occasion,  Acts,ii.  17,  18 — the  Spirit  was  poured  out  upon 
"God's  sons  and  daughters,  servants  and  handmaids;"  that 
"  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily  such  as  should  be  saved," 
without  regard  to  sex  ;  and  that  "  believers  were  the  more  ad- 
ded to  the  Lord,  multitudes,  both  of  men  and  women,"  So  that 
here  is  positive  proof  that  women  belonged  to  that  church  as 
well  as  men,  being  alike  baptized  upon  a  profession  of  their 
faith.  And  it  is  expressly  said,  that  "  all  that  believed  were  to- 
gether ;"  and  that  u  they  continued  steadfastly  in  the  apostle's 
doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in 
prayers. "  Here,  then,  the  proof  is  positive,  that  women  par- 
took of  the  supper,  in  common  with  men.  It  is  plainly  record- 
ed, that  they  believed  and  were  added  to  the  Lord  ;  and  that 
all  that  believed  were  together,  and  continued  in  the  apostle's 
doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread.  The  proof 
is  just  as  express  for  female  as  for  male  communion. 

3.  There  were  women,  also,  in  the  church  of  Samaria :  Acts, 
viii.  12*  "  For  when  the  Samaritans  "  believed  Philip  preach- 
ing the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women.'7 
The  communion  of  that  church,  also,  must  have  included  fe- 
males as  well  as  males. 

4.  There  is  both  an  express  order  to  the  church  of  Corinth, 
as  a  body,  consisting  of  males  and  females,  to  celebrate  the  sup- 
per, and  an  express  record  that  they  did  so. 

That  this  church  consisted  of  women  as  well  as  men,  appears 
from  I.  Cor.  x.  34,  35  :  "  Let  your  women  Jteep  silence  in  the 
churches  ;  for  it  is  not  permitted  unto  them  to  speak.  If  they 
will  learn  any  thing,  let  them  ask  their  husbands  at  home  ;  for 
it  is  a  shame  for  women  to  speak  in  the  church." 

The  order  to  that  church  to  observe  the  supper  is  in  chap.  xi. 
23.  "For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  deli- 
vered unto  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  the  same  night  in  which  he 
was  betrayed  took  bread,  &c.  The  pronoun  you,  includes  the 
church  collectively,  females  as  well  as  males,  for  of  such  it  con- 
sisted. And  the  order  was  to  the  whole  church .  Hence  the 
institution  itself,  as  repeated  and  enjoined  by  Paul,  contains  an 
explicit  warrant  for  female  communion. 

Besides,  the  apostle  says,  chap.  x.  16,  17,  "  The  cup  of 
blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood 
of  Christ?  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  com- 
,  munion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?■  For  we,  being  many,  are  one 
bread,  and  one  body ;  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one 
bread."  Here,  therefore,  is  a  plain  and  positive  record,  that 
the  Corinthian  church  did  all  partake  of  the  supper.    It  is 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  151 

just  as  obvious  that  the  females  partook  of  it  as  it  is  that  the 
males  did.  They  are  included  in  the  pronoun  "  we,"  and  in 
the  adjective  u  a//,"  as  it  is  evident  at  first  sight. 

The  proof,  then,  is  explicit,  that  there  were  women  in  that 
church — that  the  church  coljectively  was  ordered  to  attend  upon 
the  supper  ;  and  that  they  actually  did  so.  Besides,  the  last 
clause  of  the  last  cited  passage,  viz.  "  we  are  all  partakers  of 
that  one  bread,"  includes  all  other  Christians,  so  that  the  case 
of  that  church  was  not  peculiar. 

It  is  said,  indeed,  verse  28,  li  But  let  a  man  examine  himself, 
and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup  ;"  but 
this  does  in  no  measure  restrict  the  privilege  of  communion  to 
males  ;  for  the  word  anthropos,  (man,)  is  here,  as  in  many  oth- 
er places,  evidently  used  as  a  name  for  the  species,  and  not  to 
distinguish  a  man  from  a  woman. 

In  view,  therefore,  of  all  this,  the  warrant  for  female  com- 
munion is,  properly  speaking,  explicit,  and  not  based  upon  in- 
ference and  analogy- 
Let  such  testimony  be  brought  in  the  case  of  infant  baptism, 
and  it  will  suffice. 

But  in  relation  to  that  subject,  as  we  have  seen,  all  is  silent. 
There  is  not  so  much  as  a  plain  and  necessary  inference  from 
scriptural  premises  in  support  of  it. 

In  regard  to  the  change  of  the  Sabbath,  I  would  remark,  that 
this  is  a  moral  duty,  in  part,  at  least ;  and,  therefore,  the  sub- 
ject will  admit  of  proof  by  way  of  iuference  and  analogy.  So 
far,  at  least,  as  the  institution  respects  the  keeping  of  a  seventh 
part  of  time  holy^  it  is  of  a  moral  nature  ;  otherwise  it  would  not 
have  been  inserted  in  the  moral  law,  but  have  been  placed  in 
the  ceremonial.  It  being,  therefore,  a  moral  precept,  the  above 
kind  of  proof  may  be  brought  in  relation  to  the  change  from  the 
seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week.  There  are  now  the  same 
ieasons  for  observing  the  latter,  which  there  were  anciently  for 
observing  the  former, 

2.  The  example  of  the  Apostles  and  primitive  Christians,  is 
in  favour  of  this  change.  The  first  day  of  the  week  was  ob- 
served by  them  as  a  day  of  religious  worship,  and  breaking  of 
bread.  It  is,  hence,  denominated  the  Lord's  day  in  distinction 
from  other  days,  which  is  a  plain  intimation  of  the  change. — 
Moreover,  it  was  particularly  distinguished  and  honoured  by 
Christ's  appearing  thereon  to  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection, 

There  is  reason,  also,  to  conclude  that  the  apostle  Paul  al- 
ludes to  this  change,  and  to  the  New  Testament  Sabbath  in  Heb, 
iv.  9:  "  There  remaineth  therefore  a  rest  (in  the  Greek,  Sab- 
batismos,  a  Sabbath)  to  the  people  of  God." 


PART  II. 

THE  DIFFERENT  MODES  OF  ADMINISTERING  THE  ORDINANCE 
OF  BAPTISM  IN  USE  AMONG  THE  CHURCHES  SHOWN  TO  BE 
VALID. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Containing  an  examination  of  the  Greek  word,  baptizo. 

The  question  at  issue,  is  not  whether  immersion  be  a  valid 
mode  of  baptism.  This  no  one  disputes.  But  whether  it  be 
the  only  valid  mode,  or  whether  the  other  modes  in  use,  viz. 
washing,  pouring  and  sprinkling,  are  not  valid  also.  My  ob- 
ject is  to  show  that  these  modes  are  valid,  as  well  as  immersion, 
And  to  that  end,  I  will  commence  with  an  examination  of  the 
Greek  work,  baptizo  ;  the  word  used  in  the  institution. 

This  word  signifies  "  to  immerse,  to  wash,  or  to  wet."  There- 
fore, if  we  keep  within  the  proper  scope  or  meaning  of  this 
term,  the  baptism,  if  otherwise  correct,  is  valid.  In  regard  to 
the  action  of  baptizing,  the  apostles  were  directed  to  do  what 
this  word  imports.  If  therefore  it  signify  washing  in  general 
as  well  as  immersion,  then  any  kind  of  washing,  by  a  proper 
officer,  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  is  baptism. 

That  baptizo  signifies  to  wash,  or  to  wet,  as  well  as  to  immerse , 
we  have  the  testimony,  in  the  first  place,  of  the  best  lexicogra- 
phers. 

It  is  rendered  into  Latin,  "  mergo,  lavo,"  the  English  of 
which  is,  (in  the  infinitive  mood,)  "  to  immerse,  to  wash,  or  to 
wet."  Washing,  then,  is  one  of  its  significations.  The  Greeks 
used  it  to  denote  both  immersion  and  washing  in  general.  The 
import  was  not  confined  to  immersion,  either  in  classical  wri- 
tings or  common  conversation. 

If,  therefore,  washing  comes  within  the  proper  import  of  this 


154  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

term,  it  is  a  valid  mode  of  baptism,   whether  the  subject  be 
applied  to  the  water,  or  the  water  to  the  subject. 

When  it  is  admitted  that  haptizo  means  to  immerse,  many 
seem  to  think  it  is  proved  that  this  is  the  only  valid  mode  of 
baptizing.  There  is  great  account  often  made  of  this  admission, 
as  though  it  decided  the  whole  controversy. 

But  in  truth  it  proves  no  more  than  that  immersion  is  a  valid 
mode  of  baptism,  without  affecting  the  validity  of  other  modes. 

Take  this  admission,  which  is  made  by  many  learned  Pedo- 
baptist  authors,  apart  from  what  they  further  say  respecting  the 
import  of  baptizo,  and  it  would,  indeed,  appear  to  have  great 
weight ;  because  it  would  represent  them  as  yielding  the  ground 
to  the  Baptists,  and  as  contradicting  their  own  practice. 

But  these  authors  have  immediately  added,  that  it  signifies 
also  to  wash)  to  wet,  or  to  cleanse.  It  is  unfair,  therefore,  to  quote 
only  a  part  of  their  testimony,  viz.  so  far  as  it  contains  an  ad- 
mission that  this  Greek  term  means  to  immerse,  while  they 
maintain  in  the  same  connexion,  and  with  equal  plainness  and 
confidence,  that  it  means  also  to  wash,  or  to  apply  water  in  any 
mode.  From  a  partial  quoting  of  the  testimony  of  these  authors, 
(which  I  am  sorry  to  say  is  frequently  done,)  one  would  be 
ready  to  think  the  cause  of  immersion  triumphant.  Wtiereas, 
when  it  is  quoted  entire,  it  yields  no  support  to  that  cause  :  i.  e, 
it  affords  no  proof  that  immersion  is  the  only  valid  baptism. 

These  authors  admit  no  more  than  every  one  admits  who  is 
acquainted  with  the  subject,  viz.  that  one  of  the  meanings  of 
baptizo  is  to  immerse,  while  he  maintains  that  it  signifies  also  to 
tvash  or  to  cleanse  in  any  mode. 

I  am  willing  to  allow  the  Baptists  every  thing  which  can  be 
reasonably  claimed  from  the  import  of  this  word.  And  this  I 
have  already  done.     It  signifies  to  immerse,  to  ivash,  or  to  wet. 

But  this  admission  does  not  determine  in  which  of  these 
senses  it  is  used  when  it  pertains  to  the  ordinance  of  Christian 
baptism.  The  word  may  be  oftener  used  to  denote  immersion 
than  washing;  but  this  will  not  prove  that  it  means  immersion, 
exclusively,  when  applied  to  this  subject.  There  is  nothing  in 
this  circumstance  which  necessarily  restricts  its  import  to  im- 
mersion. It  may  notwithstanding,when  applied  to  this  ordinance, 
be  used  in  the  other  sense,  and  this  may  be  sufficiently  indica- 
ted by  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  At  any  rate,  it  plainly 
includes  the  other  sense,  so  as  to  determine  that  washing  in  any 
mode  is  baptism  as  well  as  immersion. 

It  is  plead  in  favour  of  the  first  rendering  of  this  term,  that  it 
is  a  derivative  from  bapto,  the  meaning  of  which  is  to  c%,  to 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  155 

plunge  all  over  in  water ;  consequently,  that  this  also  means  to 
immerse,  and  that  only. 

But  this  conclusion  will  not  follow,  allowing  the  truth  of  the 
premises.  For  the  very  circumstance  that  baptizo  is  a  deriva- 
tive from  bapto,  shows  that  its  import  is  less.  The  full  meaning 
of  the  root,  or  primitive  word,  is  not  ordinarily  retained  in  the 
derivative.  Allowing,  therefore,  that  bapto  means  to  dip  exclu- 
sively,  we  cannot  justly  infer  that  baptizo  means  also  to  dip  and 
nothing  else:  but  the  natural  inference  is,  that  its  common 
signification  is  something  short  of  dipping.  To  wash  in  any 
mode,  is  a  meaning  which  well  suits  a  derivative  from  bapto. 
Accordingly,  some  of  the  best  writers  have  said  that  the  proper 
meaning  of  baptizo  is  to  wash  in  general,  and  that  it  only  signi- 
fies to  immerse,  as  that  is  one  mode  of  washing. 

The  inconclusiveness  of  this  argument  is  still  more  evident, 
from  the  circumstance  that  bapto  itself  does  not  invariably  mean 
to  dip.  In  Daniel,  iv.  33,  it  plainly  signifies  to  wet,  or  to  sprin- 
kle ;  for  it  would  not  be  proper  to  say  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
dipt  in  the  dew  of  Heaven;  but  he  was  "  wet  with  it,"  as  the 
passage  is  rendered,  or  the  dew  was  distilled  upon  him. 

The  common  meaning,  however,  of  bapto,  is  to  dip.  But  it  is 
never  applied  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  The  Saviour  has 
employed  a  term  of  more  extended,  or  general  import. 

That  baptizo  signifies  to  wash  as  well  as  to  immerse,  appears, 
in  the  second  place,  from  the  use  of  it  in  the  Scriptures,  when 
applied  to  other  purifications  than  that  of  baptism.  The  trans- 
lators have  rendered  it  in  this  sense  ;  and  a  careful  examina- 
tion of  the  several  passages  will  show  that  they  have  rendered 
it  correctly. 

The  first  is  Mark,  vii.  4 :  "  And  when  they  come  from  the 
market,  except  they  wash,  (in  the  Greek, *  ean  me  baptisontai,' 
i.  e.  except  they  baptize,)  they  eat  not :  and  many  other  things 
there  be  which  they  have  received  to  hold  as  the  washing  (in 
the  Greek,  c  baptismous,^  baptisms)  of  cups,  and  pots,  brazen 
vessels,  and  of  tables."  The  translation  in  both  cases  is  man- 
ifestly correct,  except  in  the  latter,  the  word,  "  baptismous,'5 
should  have  been  rendered  in  the  plural,  washings.  In  the  first 
clause,  reference  appears  to  be  had  to  the  custom  of  washing 
hands,  or  at  most  to  the  washing  of  the  more  exposed  parts  of  the 
body.  And  in  the  latter,  to  the  different  methods  of  washing  or 
cleansing  the  articles  described.  The  word  being  plural,  de- 
notes different  methods  of  applying  water,  or  the  applying  of  it 
in  any  mode.  And  the  tables,  from  their  size  and  peculiar  con- 
struction, could  not  have  been  immersed  in  water  without  great 
inconvenience,  as  every  one  must  see  who  is  acquainted  with 


156  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  customs  of  those  times.  These  tables  were  evidently  wash- 
ed by  applying  water  to  them. 

Again,  Luke  xi.  37, 38  :  "  And  as  he  spake,  a  certain  Phari- 
see besought  him  to  dine  with  him :  and  he  went  in,  and  sat 
down  to  meat ;  and  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled 
that  he  had  not  first  washed,  (in  the  Greek, c  oli  ou  protou  ebap- 
tisthef  i.  e.  that  he  was  not  first  baptized,)  before  dinner."  The 
occasion  for  wonder  here,  on  the  part  of  the  Pharisee,  was  evi- 
dently our  Lord's  not  having  washed  his  hands  before  dinner  ; 
and  not  his  not  having  been  immersed,  u  for  the  Pharisees  and 
all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  (or,  with  the  fist, 
as  it  is  when  strictly  rendered,)  eat  not." 

Another  passage  in  which  "  baptizo,"  in  a  substantive  form, 
is  used  in  the  sense  of  washing,  is  Heb.  ix.  10  :  "  Which  stood 
only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  diverse  washings,  (in  the  Greek, 
4  diaphorois  baptismois,'  i.  e.  diverse  baptisms)  and  carnal  ordi- 
nances, imposed  on  them  until  the  time  of  reformation."  Here 
is  a  plain  allusion  to  the  various  ablutions  appointed  by  the  law, 
some  of  which  were  performed  in  one  mode,  and  some  in  anoth- 
er :  some  were  performed  on  &part  of  the  body,  and  some  on 
the  whole.  Yet  they  are  all  called  baptisms,  which  shows  con- 
clusively that  baptizo  denotes  washing  in  general,  and  is  by  no 
means  confined  to  the  sense  of  immersion. 

Moreover,  it  would  be  absurd  to  speak  of  different  immersions, 
when  immersion  is  but  one  simple  aet,  especially  as  the  word, 
diaphorois,  here  used  to  quality  u  baptismois,"  denotes,  not 
simply  "  diverse  washings,"  but  different  sorts,  or  kinds  of  wash- 
ings. But  to  speak  of  different  sorts  or  kinds  of  dippings,  would 
be  grossly  absurd.  The  terms  are,  therefore,  rightly  translated, 
diverse,  or  different  washings ;  which  is  a  plain  proof  of  the 
correctness  of  the  above  definition  of  baptizo. 

Again  :  this  word  appears  to  be  used  in  this  sense,  L  Cor.  x. 
1,2:  "  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  have  you  ignorant 
how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed 
through  the  sea ;  and  were  all  baptized  (in  the  Greek,  ebapti- 
zanto)  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  The  baptism 
received  in  this  case  was  manifestly  not  an  immersion  in  water ; 
but  merely  a  washing,  wetting,  or  sprinkling.  They  were  nei- 
ther plunged  into  the  cloud  nor  into  the  sea.  They  were  no 
more  than  washed  ox  wet  with  rain  from  the  one,  and  with  sprays 
from  the  other.  Hence,  in  evident  allusion  to  this  baptism  of  the 
congregation  of  Israel,  David  says,  Ps.  lxxvii.  16,  17,  "  The 
waters  saw  thee,  O  God,  the  waters  saw  thee,  they  were 
afraid,   the   depths  also  were  troubled.     The  clouds  poured 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  157 

out  water^  the  skies  sent  out  a  sound  :  thine  arrows  also  went 
abroad." 

Again  ;  he  says,  Psalms,  lxviii.  9 :  "  Thou,  O  God,  didst  send 
u  plentiful  rain,  whereby  thou  didst  confirm  thine  inheritance, 
when  it  was  weary."  These  passages  explain  the  baptism  in 
the  cloud.  It  was  by  rain  therefrom  ;  which  probably  took  place 
"  when  the  pillar  of  the  cloud  went  from  before  their  face  and 
stood  behind  them."  In  passing  over  their  heads,  that  it  might 
come  between  the  camp  of  the  Egyptians  and  the  camp  of 
Israel,  (see  Exodus,  xiv.  20.)  it  distilled  upon  the  latter  a  re* 
freshing  rain :  whence  they  are  said  to  have  been  u  baptized 
unto  Moses  in  the  cloud."  xVnd  they  were  baptized  also  unto 
him  u  in  the  sea,"  not  by  being  immersed  in  it,  for  u  they  went 
through  the  midst  of  it  on  dry  ground,  and  tbe  waters  were  a 
wall  unto  them  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left ;"  but  by  a 
mist,  or  by  sprays  from  the  sea. 

Again;  our  Lord  says,  Luke,  xii.  50:  "I  have  a  baptism 
(in  the  Greek,  baptisma)  to  be  baptized  with,  and  how  am  I 
straitened  till  it  be  accomplished!"  It  is  much  more  natural 
to  understand  the  term  here  to  mean  washing*  wetting,  or  bathing, 
than  immersion.  For  we  are  told  that  during  his  agony  in  the 
garden,  "his  sweat  wTas  as  it  were  great  drops  of  blood  failing 
down  to  the  ground ;"  and  while  on  the  cross,  the  blood  issued 
from  his  wounds  and  overspread^  or  bathed  his  bo  ly. 

Again  ;  we  are  told,  John,  iii  25,  26,  that  u  there  arose  a 
question  among  some  of  John's  disciples  and  the  Jews  about 
purifying  ;  and  they  came  unto  John,  and  said  unto  him,  Rabbi, 
he  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thou  bearest 
witness,  the.  same  baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him."  This 
dispute  about  purifying  being  illustrated,  or  defined,  by  an  allu- 
sion to  Christ's  baptizing,  shows  that  purifying  and  baptizing 
mean  the  same  thing.  The  subject  which  agitated  some  of 
John's  disciples,  in  as  much  as  they  were  zealous  for  their 
master's  interest  and  honour,  was  the  baptism  performed  by 
Christ,  and  its  acceptability  with  the  people.  If,  therefore,  we 
can  determine  how  this  purifying  was  performed,  we  shall  be 
assisted  in  determining  the  mode  of  baptism.  One  thing  is  cer- 
tain respecting  this  purifying,  viz.  that  it  was  not  necessarily, 
or  invariably,  performed  by  immersing  the  whole  body  in  water. 
This  appears  from  the  size  of  the  vessels  made  use  of  for  the 
purpose,  which  was  not  sufficient  for  immersion.  See  John,  ii. 
5  :  "  And  there  were  set  there  six  water-pots  of  stone,  after  the 
manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews,  containing  two  or  three 
firkins  apiece."  The  purifying,  then,  might  have  been,  yea,  must 
have  been,  in  some  instances  at  least,  performed  in  some  mode 

14 


158  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

short  of  immersion.  It  was  a  mere  partial  washing,  or  bathing— 
the  washing  of  the  face,  the  hands,  or  some  other  part  of  the 
body.  Baptism  being  here  represented  as  being  the  same  with 
purifying,  must  nave  been,  or  at  least  might  have  been,  some- 
thing short  of  a  total  immersion. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  159 


CHAPTER  II. 

Containing  an  examination  of  the  Greek  word,  u  louo,"  as  used 
to  denote  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

The  application  of  "  low"  (the  appropriate  meaning  of 
which  is  to  wash)  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  tends  to  confirm 
the  preceding  remarks.  This  term,  in  its  different  declinations, 
is  several  times  employed  to  denote  the  actum  of  baptizing. 
And  its  import  is  as  broad  as  that  of  the  English  term,  wash, 
which  describes  an  action  performed  by  putting  a  person  or 
thing  into  the  water,  or  by  applying  the  water  to  either,  in  any 
mode  whatever;  although  it  usually  denotes  some  degree  of 
friction  or  rubbing  When  a  person  is  said  to  be  washed,  no 
more  is  commonly  or  necessarily  implied  than  the  washing  of 
the  exposed  parts  of  the  body,  or  some  one  of  them.  Hence 
our  Saviour  said,  in  reply  to  Peter's  request  that  he  would 
wash  not  only  his  feet,  but  h:s  hands,  and  hs  head,  "  He  that  is 
washed,  needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet^  but  is  clean  every 
whit." 

The  application  of  louo  to  the  ordinance  of  Christian  Bap- 
tism, shows  that  baptizo,  when  applied  to  the  same,  is  used  in 
the  sense  of  to  wash  rather  than  that  of  to  immerse-  Immersion^ 
then,  is  not  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance,  because 
washing  may  be  performed  in  other  modes  as  well  as  in  that. 

One  of  the  passages  in  which  louo  is  so  applied  in  the  form 
of  a  substantive,  is  Eph.  v.  25,  26 :  tv  Christ  loved  the  church, 
and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it 
with  the  washing  of  water  (in  the  Greek,  u  to  toutro  tou  huda- 
tos")  by  the  word."  There  can  be  do  doubt  that  Christian 
baptism  is  the  thing  here  referred  to,  and  described.  There 
is  no  other  application  of  water  in  use  in  the  Christian  church 
to  which  it  can  be  understood  to  refer;  and  it  must  be  obvious  to 
every  one,  that  the  significant  and  expressly  appointed  ordinance 
of  baptism  is  meant.  This  is  an  outward  cleansing  represent- 
ing the  inward  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  it  is  here  denominated 
simply  a  washing  with  water.  From  which  it  is  evident,  that 
the  leading  idea  of  baptism  is  a  washing  or  cleansing^  a  purifi- 


160  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

cation,  or  a  putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh — a  significant  ee- 
remony  which  the  Lord  has  seen  meet  to  appoint  and  continue 
in  the  church,  as  a  publick  badge  of  discipleship,  and  an  out- 
ward representation  or  symbol  of  the  purifying  work  of  the  Spi- 
rit through  the  instrumentality  of  the  word.  It  does  not,  of  it- 
self, save  ;  but  it  is  simply  an  act  of  obedience— an  appointed 
and  significant  purification.  Immersion,  then,  is  evidently  not 
essential,  but  washing  in  any  other  mode  is  alike  valid. 

Another  passage  in  which  louo  is  applied  to  baptism,  is  Heb. 
x.  22  :  "  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart,  in  the  full  assur- 
ance  of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  con- 
science, and  our  bodies  washed  (in  the  Greek, leloumenoi) 
with  pure  water."  Leloumenoi  is  a  participle  from  louo,  which, 
as  before  observed,  means  to  wash  in  general. 

Christian  baptism  is  here  again  undoubtedly  referred  to,  and 
is  expressly  represented  as  a  washing,  which  affords  another 
conclusive  testimony  that  baptizo,  when  applied  to  this  ordi- 
nance, is  used  in  the  sense  of  to  wash,  rather  than  that  of  to 
immerse.  Any  application  of  water  which  may  be  termed  a 
washing  or  cleansing,  is  a  real  baptism,  though  in  ever  so  small  a 
degree. 

Again  :  A  similar  application  is  made  of  louo  in  the  form  of  a 
substantive,  in  Titus,  iii.  5  :  "  Not  by  works  of  righteousness 
which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy,  he  saved  us  by 
the  washing  (in  the  Greek,  loutrou)  of  regeneration  and  renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Ghost.5 '  "  The  washing  of  regeneration"  pro- 
bably denotes  baptism,  a  "  being  born  of  water,"  as  regenera- 
tion itself  is  called,  in  the  next  words,  "  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  The  latter  expression  would  be  a  tautology  if 
the  former  denoted  regeneration  itself.  Baptism  is  probably 
meant  by  the  first  phrase,  and  if  so,  it  is  called  a  washing. 

And  provided  regeneration  itself  is  denoted  by  this  phrase,  it 
is  manifestly  called  a  washing  in  allusion  to  the  washing  used  in 
baptism  ;  so  that,  in  either  sense,  baptism  is  represented  as  a 
washing* 

A  similar  application  is  made  of  louo,  I.  Cor.  vi.  11 :  u  And 
such  were  some  of  you  ;  but  ye  are  washed,  (in  the  Greek, 
M  apelousasthe,"  which  is  compounded  of  apo  and  louo,)  but 
ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God."  The  words,  "  but  ye 
are  washed,"  evidently  relate  to  baptism,  and  are  the  same  as  to 
say,  "  but  ye  are  baptized."  For  if  we  should  say  they  de- 
note the  inward  change,  or  purification,  the  next  words,  viz. 
i{  but  ye  are  sanctified,"  would  be  a  mere  tautology. 

But  even  if  we  should  say  he  means  the  same  inward  cleans- 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  l6l 

ing  by  both  phrases,  it  will  be  evident,  from  the  manner" in 
which  this  is  expressed,  that  the  outward  cleansing  by  baptism  is 
a  icashing  too. 

Again;  Annanias  said  to  Paul,  Acts  xxii.  16:  "  And  now 
why  tarriest  thou  ?  Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  (in 
the  Greek,  apolousai )  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord."  Here  baptism  is  also  represented  as  a  washing.  Not 
that  it  does  really  wash  away  sin,  but  only  representatively  or  sym- 
bolically,  or  it  is  an  open  expression  and  testimony  of  that  faith 
in  Jesus  whereby  we  obtain  the  remission  of  sins  and  are  wash- 
ed in  the  fountain  of  his  blood.  At  any  rate,  the  sense  of  wash- 
ing is  plainly  attributed  to  baptism. 

This  sense  is  again  attributed  to  it  in  John,  xiii.  10  :  "  Jesus 
saith  unto  him,  he  that  is  washed  (in  the  Greek,  "  o  leloume- 
nos")  needeth  not,  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every 
whit."  In  whatever  way  this  passage  is  explained,  the  leading 
idea  of  baptism  is  a  washing. 

Seeing,  therefore,  that  louo  is  applied  in  so  many  instances  to 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  this  is  a  strong  argument  in  favour  of 
understanding  the  word  baptizo  in  the  sense  of  to  wash,  rather 
than  that  of  to  immerse  when  it  is  applied  to  express  this  ordi- 
nance ;  especially  as  it  does  itself  evidently  bear  this  render- 
ing, and  is  so  employed  and  rendered  in  several  passages  of  scrip- 
ture, as  we  have  seen. 

Hence  the  mode  of  immersion  is  included  in  its  signification 
only  as  it  is  one  form  of  washing,  while  washing,  in  any  other 
mode,  is  equally  valid. 

Could  it  be  even  proved  that  the  apostles  generally — yea. 
universally  performed  baptism  by  immersion,  this  would  not 
prove  that  no  other  mode  is  valid.  The  form  of  applying  wa- 
ter is  a  mere  circumstance  which  does  not  affect  the  validity  of 
the  ordinance.  If  the  apostles  practised  immersion  only,  this 
would  show  that  it  is  the  preferable  mode  ;  that  no  other  is 
so  proper  and  expressive  ;  but  it  would  not  absolutely  nullify 
other  modes. 

Because,  the  word  baptizo,  used  in  the  commission,  admits  of 
a  greater  latitude  of  meaning,  both  as  used  in  the  scriptures 
and  in  the  classicks  ;  and  because  louo,,  a  word  which  appropri- 
ately means  to  wash,  without  determining  the  mode,  is  applied 
to  the  same  ordinance.  And  therefore,  if  we  keep  within  the 
proper  scope  of  these  terms,  we  perform  a  valid  baptism.  We  are 
bidden  to  teach  and  baptize  ;  and  if  to  baptize  be  to  immerse,  or 
to  ivashwith  water  in  any  mode,  then  if  we  do  either,  we  exe- 
cute the  commission. 

14? 


1 62  MODE  OF  BAPTISM, 

But  it  is  far  from  being  decisively  proved  that  the  aposties 
practised  immersion,  and  that  only.  We  have  not  found  such 
proof  from  either  of  the  words  used  to  express  this  ordinance, 
nor  shall  we,  by  the  examination  of  any  other  declaration  or 
circumstance  pertaining  to  the  subject. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM,  163 


CHAPTER   III. 

The  figurative  import  of  baptism  examined. 

The  Baptists  make  considerable  account  of  the  figurative  im- 
port of  baptism.  It  is  considered  as  representing  a  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection,  or,  at  least,  a  burial  and  resurrection;  and 
hence  immersion  is  regarded  as  the  only  valid  mode. 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  grounded  principally  upon  two 
passages.  The  first  is  Rom.  vi.  4 :  "  Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised 
up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also 
should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  The  other  is  Colos.  ii.  12  : 
"  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with 
him,  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised 
him  from  the  dead." 

In  regard  to  the  application  of  scripture  figures,  it  must  be  re- 
marked that  great  care  and  prudence  are  required,  lest  we  make 
them  mean  more  than  the  author  intended.  By  giving  them 
too  literal  an  interpretation,  many  gross  errours  have  obtained 
in  the  church  in  successive  ages. 

It  is  of  considerable  importance  to  the  right  understanding  oi- 
these  passages  to  ascertain  what  is  referred  to  by  being  buried 
with  Christ,  or  what  burial  of  him  is  meant.  Is  the  allusion 
made  to  his  baptism,  or  to  his  burial  in  the  tomb  subsequent  to 
his  crucifixion?  The  argument  from  this  source  in  favour  of 
immersion,  seems  to  point  us  to  his  baptism,  taking  it  for  granted 
that  he  was  buried  in  the  water,  and  maintaining  that  the  primi- 
tive Christians  are  said  to  be  "  buried  with  him,"  by  being 
baptized  in  the  same  mode.  But  if  we  duly  examine  the  sub- 
ject, we  shall  find  that  the  allusion  is  to  his  burial  in  the  tomb, 
and  not  in  the  water.  u  Know  ye  not,  says  the  apostle,  that  so 
many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized 
into  his  death.  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism 
into  death ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead 
(not  from  the  water)  by  the  glory  of  God,  we  also  should  walk 
in  newness  of  life."  The  words,  "that  like  as  Christ  was 
Taised  up  from  the  dead,"  show  conclusively  that  the  reference 


164  MODE   OF   BAPTISM* 

is  made,  not  to  his  baptism,  but  to  his  burial  in  the  tomb.  Our 
beiug  buried  with  Christ  does,  indeed,  imply  that  he  was 
buried ;  cot  in  the  water,  but  merely  in  the  tomb.  The 
concluding  clause  of  the  passage  from  Colossians  teaches  the 
same  thing.  "  Through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who 
hath  raised  him/ro/?i  the  dead." 

The  question,  then,  before  us,  is,  in  what  sense  are  we  said 
to  be  buried  with  Christ  in  his  tomb  which  was  hewn  out  of  a 
rock,  by  baptism,  and  risen  with  him  from  the  same  ?  Baptism, 
it  will  be  observed,  is  not  itself  a  burial,  but  rather  the  cause 
which  produces  a  buriaL  "  Buried  with  him  by  baptism,"  or 
"  in  baptism."  If  baptism  be  merely  the  cause,  and  the  burial 
the  effect,  these  passages  do  not  determine  the  mode  of  ad- 
ministration. A  figurative  burial,  which  is  the  effect,  may  be 
produced  by  baptism  in  any  other  mode,  as  well  as  in  that  of 
immersion.  The  whole  effect  of  baptism  is  represented  to  be  a 
death  and  burial  unto  sin,  and  a  resurrection  to  newness  of  life. 

Hence,  if  the  baptism  intended  be  outward  baptism,  the 
meaning  must  be  that  we  hereby  signify  and  profess  to  be  dead 
and  buried  to  sin,  as  Christ  died  for  sin,  or  that  we  profess  to 
be  crucified  to  the  world  and  separated  from  its  lusts,  like  as 
a  person  who  is  dead  and  b.uried  is,  thereby,  separated  from 
living  men  ;  and  that  we  profess  also  to  be  alive  unto  God 
through  Jesus  Christ.  Moreover,  we  hereby  profess  to  ground 
all  our  hopes  of  purification,  pardon,  and  happiness,  upon  the 
death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ — to  have  communion 
with  him  therein — and  to  derive  spiritual  quickening,  purifica- 
tion and  nutriment  therefrom,  through  the  effectual  working  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  We  are  also  hereby  brought  under  the  highest 
obligations  to  walk  in  newness  of  life. 

Now,  it  is  manifest  that  all  this  may  be  signified  and  pro- 
fessed by  one  mode  of  baptism  as  well  as  by  another. 

If  it  be  allowed,  that  one  mode  is  more  striking,  and  more  ex- 
pressive of  these  things  than  another,  any  mode  of  applying 
water  answers  the  great  design,  because  it  is  an  outward  purifi- 
cation, in  receiving  which  we  profess  our  faith  in  Jesus,  who 
was  crucified,  and  buried,  and  is  risen  again  for  our  justification 
and  salvation. 

But  if  spiritual  baptism  be  referred  to  in  these  passages,  (and 
there  are  several  considerations  in  favour  of  this  interpretation,) 
then  the  above  effects,  or  consequences,  are  really  produced. 

I  would  here  remark,  that  Christ  expressly  promised  to  "  bap- 
tize his  disciples  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  is  also  said,  "  b) 
one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be 
Jews  or  Greeks."   And  Peter  speaks  of  a  baptism  distinct  from 


MODE  OP  BAPTISM.  165 

u  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  fleshy"  viz.  "  the  answer 
of  a  good  conscience  towards  God." 

Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  there  is  a  spiritual  baptism  common 
to  all  believers,  and  as  this  is  vastly  the  most  important  kind  of 
baptism,  the  apostle  may  be  reasonably  supposed  to  refer  to 
this  in  these  passages.  Especially,  as  there  are  effects  attribu- 
ted to  it  which  can  be  strictly  affirmed  of  no  other :  viz.  a  death 
unto  sin,  and  a  resurrection  to  spiritual  life. 

Besides,  in  connexion  with  the  passage  quoted  from  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  apostle  speaks  of  a  crucifixion  also  ; 
but  it  is  not  the  crucifixion  of  the  literal  body,  but  of  the  "  old 
man,"  or  body  of  sin.  The  burial  spoken  of,  therefore,  may  be 
naturally  understood  to  belong  to  the  old  man  too,  the  same  body 
which  is  crucified  with  Christ ;  (seeing  that  a  burial  is  conse- 
quent upon  a  death.)  In  that  case,  spiritual  baptism  must  be 
the  thing  referred  to. 

This  interpretation  is  further  sustained  by  the  apostle's  speak* 
ing  in  connexion  with  the  passage  quoted  from  Colossians  of 
"  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,"  which  indicates  that 
the  inward  change  and  purification  wrought  in  the  hearts  of 
Christians  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  thing  intended  by  being 
buried  with  Christ  in  baptism. 

We  cannot,  therefore,  infer  any  thing  conclusively  from 
these  passages  in  favour  of  immersion  as  the  only  valid  mode. 
It  will  no  more  follow  that  we  must  be  immersed  in  water 
because  we  are  said  to  be  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  than 
it  will  that  our  bodies  must  be  literally  crucified,  or  that  some- 
thing must  be  performed  upon  them  resembling  a  crucifixion, 
because  we  are  said  to  be  crucified  with  him.  Again  ;  it  will 
no  more  follow  that  immersion  must  necessarily  be  the  mode> 
than  it  will  that  the  ordinance  must  be  administered  in  the 
form  of  planting,  because  we  are  said  to  be  "planted  together  in 
the  likeness  of  his  death." 

We  must  not  be  too  literal,  as  before  observed,  in  the  appli- 
cation of  figures,  lest  we  run  into  the  grossest  absurdities. 
Their  obvious  design  is  to  teach  and  impress  some  spiritual 
truth,  or  idea ;  but  not  that  every  feature  in  the  representation 
or  image  is  to  be  applied  to  that  truth,  or  idea  ;  or  that  we  must 
always  have,  in  all  respects,  something  answerable  to  the  figure 
in  that  which  is  intended  to  be  described. 

The  spiritual  idea  intended  to  be  described  in  these  passa- 
ges is  that  of  a  death  to,  and  separation  from  sin,  and  a  recovery 
to  holiness,  which  is  really  produced  by  the  baptism  of  the  Spi- 
rit, and  explicitly  professed,  by  outward  baptism,  whatever  be 
the  mode. 


166  MODE   OF    BAPTISM, 

Allowing  the  latter  to  be  meant,  viz.  a  baptism  with  water, 
it  is  by  no  means  necessary  that  we  should  have  a  form  of  bap- 
tism answering  in  all  respects  to  this  idea.  Or  if  it  were,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  determine  whether,  on  the  whole,  immer- 
sion would  be  a  more  perfect  representation  of  it  than  washing 
in  some  other  mode. 

The  operation  of  the  Spirit  in  producing  the  spiritual  reno- 
vation, is  commonly  denoted  by  "  his  being  shed  forth,"  "  or 
poured  out,"  or  by  "  his  coming  upon"  the  people  of  God,  and 
not  by  their  being  immersed  into  him.  In  conformity  .to  this 
representation,  Christian  baptism  appears  to  be  the  thing  refer- 
red to  by  the  prophet  Isaiah,  chap.  lii.  15,  in  these  words : 
*c  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations  ;"  and  by  the  prophet  Eze- 
kiel,  chap,  xxxvi.  25,  in  these  words  :  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean."  These  predic- 
tions both  relate,  unquestionably,  to  gospel  times,  and  CMstian 
baptism  appears  to  be  the  thing  referred  to.  Conse  ntiy, 
they  decidedly  favour  the  practice  of  applying  water  to  the 
subject,  and  not  of  applying  the  subject  to  the  water,  as  in 
immersion. 

There  is  another  passage  urged  with  much  confidence  in  fa* 
vour  of  immersion  as  the  only  valid  mode.  It  is  Eph.  iv.  5 : 
u  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism." 

It  is  contended  that  water  baptism  is  here  meant,  and  that 
there  being  but  one  baptism,  implies  that  there  is  but  one  mode. 

It  is  by  no  means  clear  that  water  baptism  is  the  one  intended. 
There  are  weighty  reasons  for  supposing  the  apostle  refers  to 
the  spiritual  baptism,  which  is  emphatically  one — the  common 
blessing  and  privilege  of  all  the  children  of  God.  In  that  case 
it  proves  nothing  in  favour  of  this  mode. 

But,  allowing  that  water  baptism  is  meant,  it  will  not  be 
necessary  to  consider  immersion  as  essential  to  the  oneness  of 
the  ordinance.  The  baptism  may  be  emphatically  owe,  though 
the  water  be  applied  in  different  ways.  All  which  is  necessary 
to  its  being  one  baptism,  is  that  it  should  be  administered  to  a 
proper  subject  by  the  sole  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  name 
of  the  Trinity  with  the  use  of  water.  It  is  not  said  there  is  one 
mode  of  baptism,  but  simply  one  baptism.  And  if  this  be  ad- 
ministered as  just  described,  it  is  with  obvious  propriety  de- 
nominated one,  though  performed  in  different  ways  :  as  there  is 
one  Lord's  Supper,  too — one  simple  ordinance,  designed  to  com- 
memorate the  dying  love  of  Christ ;  and  its  oneness  is  not  af- 
fected by  the  circumstance  of  its  being  received  in  an  upper 
room,  as  at  the  first,  or  in  a  meeting  house,  school  house,  or  pri- 
vate house,  or  in  the  open  air,  or  in  the  posture  of  sitting,  stand,* 


MODE    OF   BAPTISM.  167 

ing,  or  kneeling  ;  or  by  the  circumstance  of  coming  to  a  table, 
or  by  that  of  the  elements'  being  carried  round  to  the  different 
seats,  or  by  its  being  administered  on  Friday,  as  at  first,  or  on 
the  Sabbath,  or  on  any  other  day  of  the  week.  These  things 
evidently  do  not  affect  the  oneness  of  this  ordinance  ;  neither 
do  the  different  applications  of  water  in  baptism  affect  the  one- 
ness  of  that  ordinance. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  169 


CHAPTER  IV. 

The  circumstances  attending  the  Administration  of  Baptism  con- 
sidered. 

There  are  several  circumstances  connected  with  the  perform- 
ance of  this  rite  in  the  primitive  ages  favourable  to  the  mode 
of  immersion  ;  and  there  are  several,  also,  which  are  unfavour- 
able to  it ;  but  nothing,  in  either  case,  which  is  decisive. 

As  belonging  to  the  first  class  of  circumstances,  we  may  no- 
tice the  people's  being  baptized  "  in  a  river ;"  their  "  going 
down  into  and  coming  up  out  of  the  water ;"  and  John's  "  bap- 
tizing in  Enon  because  there  was  much  water  there." 

In  regard  to  the  people's  being  baptized  in  a  river,  I  would 
observe  that  they  might  have  been  baptized  therein  by  washing, 
pouring,  or  sprinkling,  as  wrell  as  by  immersion.  Christ  might 
have  been  baptized  in  the  river  of  Jordan  in  either  of  these 
modes.  To  be  washed  in  that  river,  although  the  application  of 
water  was  made  only  to  a  part  of  his  body,  might  have  been 
very  naturally  the  mode. 

But,  it  will  be  inquired,  why  did  they  repair  to  this  river  for 
baptism,  instead  of  fetching  the  wTater  from  it,  or  from  some 
other  fountain,  seeing  but  little  water  was  required  in  any  other 
mode  except  in  that  of  immersion  ?  I  will  answer  this  ques- 
tion by  asking  another.  Why  did  the  women  mentioned  in  the 
xvi.  chap,  of  Acts  repair  to  the  river's  side  where  prayer  was 
wont  to  be  made  ?  or  why  was  prayer  wont  to  be  made  there  ? 
This  place  could  not  have  been  selected  for  the  purpose  of  bap- 
tism, because  the  ordinance  was  not  known  among  them  till 
Paul  came  there  and  preached.  The  selection,  therefore, 
was  evidently  made  for  its  pleasantness  and  convenience.  So 
in  the  other  case.  The  banks  of  Jordan  afforded  a  pleasant 
and  convenient  place  for  a  field-preacher  to  labour  in  like  John 
the  Baptist.  And  then  it  would  be  very  natural  to  baptize  the 
converts  in  or  at  the  river.  There  is  no  mention  made  here  or 
elsewhere,  of  their  going  from  the  place  of  preaching  to  obtain 
baptism.  This  place,  therefore,  might  have  been  selected  be- 
cause of  its  pleasantness  and  convenience  for  preaching  and  the 

15 


170 


MODE  OP  BAPTISM. 


accommodation  of  the  multitudes  in  other  respects  than  that  of 
baptism.  Besides,  the  great  number  who  applied  for  baptism 
made  it  convenient  to  go  to  the  river  itself,  especially  as  the 
preaching  took  place  on  its  banks.  Moreover,  it  might  have 
been  thought  preferable  to  go  to  a  river  or  fountain  of  water, 
when  convenient,  and  take  the  water  from  thence,  or  to  wash 
therein,  because  it  was  considered  as  more  fully  and  strikingly 
representing  the  fulness  of  the  gospel  provisions,  than  the  bring- 
ing of  water  in  a  vessel. 

As  to  the  circumstance  of  their  going  down  into  the  water, 
and  coming  up  out  of  it,  I  would  remark,  that  allowing  they 
actually  did  so,  it  will  not  prove  immersion  to  be  the  mode.  Go* 
ing  into  the  water  was  not  baptism.  For  the  baptism  was  sub- 
sequently performed,  as  it  is  clear  from  the  case  of  Philip  and 
the  eunuch.  Whether  in  that  case,  or  in  any  other,  the  sub- 
ject was  immersed j  or  washed  in  some  part  of  his  body,  or  had 
water  applied  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  we  are  not  informed. 
And  we  must  not  be  wise  above  what  is  written,  if,  indeed, 
baptizo  meant  only  to  immerse,  it  would  be  clear  that  the  sub- 
ject was  immersed,  but  as  it  does  not  merely  mean  this,  the  man- 
ner of  the  baptism  is  undecided  from  the  circumstance  in  ques- 
tion. To  go  into  the  water  for  the  purpose  of  washing  is  not  at 
all  unnatural. 

Besides,  it  is  well  known  by  all  that  have  access  to  the  scrip- 
[  tures  in  the  original  Greek,  that  the  prepositions  translated 
"  into"  and  "  out  of,"  might  have  been  correctly  rendered  to 
and/mm.  They  are  oiten  so  rendered.  The  preposition  M  eis," 
is  rendered  to,  or  unto,  nearly  as  many  times  inthe^ew  Testa- 
ment as  it  is  into.  The  preposition  "  apo,"  which  is  translated 
"  out  of,"  m  Mat.  iii.  16,  and  Mark,  i.  10,  is  translated  "from" 
more  than  five  times  as  often  as  it  is  "  out  of"  And  the  pre- 
position "  ek,"  which  is  translated  H  out  of"  in  Acts,  viii.  39,  is 
also  translated  ufrom"  oftener  than  "  out  of."  So  that  from 
the  ordinary  use  of  these  prepositions,  the  balance  of  evidence 
is  in  favour  of  rendering  them  "  to"  and  ufrom,"  instead  of 
"into"  and  "  out  of"  If,  then,  these  words  might  have  been 
as  properly,  or  more  properly,  translated  to  and  from,  then  all 
which  is  necessary  to  be  understood  from  the  record  is,  that 
they  went  down  to,  and  came  upfro?n,  the  water.  It  may  seem 
strange  that  these  Greek  terms  were  thus  indefinite,  and  that 
they  will  admit  of  being  rendered  either  way.  But  such  is  the 
fact.  The  connexion,  however,  will  ordinarily  show  how  they 
are  to  be  understood,  where  it  is  important  to  know  the  precise 
meaniug.  Besides,  the  evil  arising  from  the  indefinite  import  of 
<*'  eis,"  which  may  be  rendered  either  to,  into7  or  unto,  was  re- 


MODE  OP  BAPTISM.  171 

rnedied,  when  a  real  entrance  into  a  thing  or  place  was  to  be 
clearly  denoted,  by  doubling  the  preposition,  i.  e.  by  using  it 
singly,  and  also  compounding  it  with  the  verb. 

When  the  subject,  therefore,  is  fairly  understood,  the  cir- 
cumstance under  consideration  is  of  no  real  weight  to  prove 
immersion  to  have  been  the  primitive  mode. 

In  respect  to  the  circumstance  of  John's  baptizing  in  Enon 
because  there  was  much  water  there,  I  would  remark,  that  the 
reasons  already  assigned  for  his  baptizing  in  or  at  the  river  of 
Jordan,  will  apply  to  this  case  also.  This  place  might  have 
been  selected  for  other  purposes  than  that  of  immersion,  allow- 
ing it  to  have  been  strictly  a  place  of  much  water. 

But  the  Greek  terms,  "  hudata  polla,"  literally  rendered,  are 
many  waters,  and  therefore  may  simply  denote  a  place  of  many 
rivulets,  or  springs  of  water,  which  rendering,  it  is  said,  is  fa- 
voured by  the  geography  of  the  country. 

But  if  the  present  rendering;  is  retained,  the  passage  does  not 
conclusively  prove  that  immersion  was  the  mode,  though  it  is  a 
circumstance  which,  if  not  counteracted  by  other  considerations, 
might  naturally  lead  to  that  conclusion. 

These  are  the  most  material  circumstances  in  favour  of  the 
mode  of  immersion,  and  they  are  all,  evidently,  inconclusive. 

The  circumstances,  on  the  other  hand,  which  are  unfavoura- 
ble to  that  mode,  and  corroborative  of  the  general  sense  which 
I  have  given  of  baptizo,  are  the  following,  viz. :  The  improba- 
bility that  the  multitudes  which  were  baptized  by  John  and  by 
the  apostles,  were  provided,  under  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  with  proper  change  of  apparel  for  such  a  mode.  A  con- 
stant miracle,  or  that  whicii,  at  least,  would  have  been  very  lit- 
tle short  of  a  miracle,  would  have  been  required  to  sustain  John, 
day  after  day,  up  to  his  waist  in  water,  to  baptize  in  this  mode  ; 
and  yet  we  are  told  that  he  "  did  no  miracle,"  Also,  it  can 
hardly  be  supposed,  that  under  the  beuigh  reign  of  the  Prince 
of  Peace,  so  great  an  inconvenience  as  the  mode  of  immersion 
implies  under  certain  circumstances,  viz.  those  which  existed 
when  such  multitudes  were  baptized  by  a  single  individual,  or 
a  few  individuals,  and  that  without  their  having  any  previous 
notice,  or  very  little  previous  opportunity  to  prepare.  The  in- 
convenience of  baptizing  a  few  individuals,  at  this  day,  in  this 
mode,  when  the  thing  is  understood  beforehand,  is  allowed  to  be 
not  very  great.  And,  indeed,  were  it  ever  so  great,  it  ought  to 
be  performed  in  this  mode  if  the  candidate  is  not  otherwise  sa- 
tisfied. But  under  the  circumstances  attending  baptism  in  ma- 
ny cases,  in  the  primitive  ages,  the  inconvenience  was  great. 
And  it  would  be  highly  inconvenient  in  many  cases  which 


i/2  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

might  be  stated  in  our  own  day.  Another  circumstance  unfavour- 
able to  immersion,  is  the  little  time  afforded,  on  the  day  of  pen- 
tecost,  and  the  want  of  accommodations  for  the  baptism  of  the 
three  thousand.  Another  such  circumstance  is  that  of  the  jailer 
and  his  family  being  baptized  in  the  outer  prison,  (for  it  appears 
plain  from  the  record  that  they  were  baptized  there)  in  the  dead  of 
the  night.  And  again  ;  there  is  no  mention  made  in  all  the 
New  Testament  history  of  baptism,  of  tiuir  going  from  the 
place  of  preaching  to  administer  this  ordinance  U  the  preach- 
ing was  held  by  the  side  of  a  river,  they  were  baptized  in  or  at 
the  river ;  if  in  the  temple,  (for  aught  appears,)  they  were  bap- 
tized in  the  temple  ;  if  in  a  jail,  the}  were  baptized  in  the  jail ; 
and  if  in  a  private  house,  they  were  baptized  in  the  house. 

This  last  circumstance  is  decidedly  unfavourable  to  immer- 
sion as  the  mode,  or  certainly  as  the  only  mode. 

Indeed,  if  it  were  commonly  and  ever  so  clearly  related,  that 
after  the  preaching  and  conversions  that  took  place,  the  preach- 
er and  converts  repaired  to  a  river  or  fountain  of  water  for  the 
purpose  of  baptism^  this,  though  a  circumstance  favourable  to 
immersion,  would  not  have  been  decisive,  as  I  have  already 
shown  ;  because  they  might  have  repaired  thither  to  be  washed, 
sprinkled,  or  poured  upon,  conceiving  that  a  plenitude  of  water 
would  more  strikingly  represent  the  plenitude  of  divine  grace, 
and  the  atoning  merits  of  Christ,  than  a  little,  and  therefore  have 
preferred  taking  the  fluid  directly  therefrom,  to  taking  it  from  a 
small  vessel.  There  are  various  instances,  in  these  days,  of 
people's  going  to  a  river,  lake,  or  pond  to  receive  baptism,  with- 
out being  immersed.  So  that  such  a  circumstance,  had  it  ex- 
isted, would  not  have  been  conclusive  in  favour  of  immersion. 
But  the  truth  is,  it  did  not  exist.  We  are  no  where  informed 
of  their  going//om  the  place  of  preaching  to  a  river  or  fountain 
to  obtain  baptism.  So  far  as  appears,  the  converts  were  uni- 
formly baptized  in  the  place  where  the  preaching  was  held,  or 
the  other  means  were  used  that  were  blessed  to  their  conver- 
sion. This,  therefore,  is  a  strong  circumstance  in  favour  of  the 
more  general  signification  of  baptism. 

Although  neither  this  nor  any  other  ciremmstance  is  con- 
clusive against  immersion,  so  the  circumstances  before  men- 
tioned are  not  conclusive  in  its  favour.  For  aught  appears 
from  the  several  circumstances  attending  the  administration  of 
baptism  in  the  primitive  ages,  it  might  have  been  performed  in 
either  of  the  beforementioned  modes. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISMS  173 


CHAPTER  V. 

Containing  an  examination  of  the  argument  in  favour  of  Immer- 
sion from  Ecclesiastical  History, 

Many  have  asserted  with  confidence,  that  immersion  was 
the  mode  ordinarily  practised  in  the  early  ages.  Dr.  Wall,  an 
eminent  writer  and  a  strong  Pedobaptist,  allows  that"  the  whole 
church  practised  immersion  for  thirteen  hundred  years  after 
Christ,  except  in  the  case  of  the  cliuicks,"  i.  e.  persons  of  feeble 
health,  and  hence  labours  to  bring  the  church  back  to  that  mode 
of  administration.  I  believe  his  testimony  is  as  strong  as  any 
which  can  be  found.  It  is  one  upon  which  the  Baptists  place 
great  reliance.  And  yet  it  will  be  perceived  that  even  this 
author,  after  a  diligent  research,  does  not  affirm  that  immersion 
was  invariably  practised  in  those  ages ;  nor  does  he  offer  any 
thing  to  show  that  it  was  considered  essential  to  the  validity  of 
the  ordinance.  Instead  of  this,  he  brings  satisfactory  proof 
from  the  writings  of  the  early  fathers  that  it  was  not  so  consider- 
ed, but  that  other  modes  of  applying  water  were  viewed  as 
constituting  a  real  baptism.  This  was  decidedly  his  own  opin- 
ion. 

Allowing,  therefore,  that  this,  and  other  similar  declarations 
of  ecclesiastical  writers,  contain  the  real  matter  of  fact ,  all  which 
they  prove  is,  that  immersion  was  considered  the  most  signifi- 
cant mode,  and,  therefore,  preferable  to  any  other,  when  the 
health  and  circumstances  of  the  subject  would  permit. 

All  appear  to  allow,  that  the  Clinicks  were  baptized  in  some 
mode  short  of  immersion.  And  this  shows  conclusively  that  im- 
mersion was  not  deemed  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  ordi- 
nance ;  and,  therefore,  the  early  practice  of  the  church,  allow- 
ing it  to  be  as  above  stated,  does  not  prove  the  position  which  is 
taken  by  the  Baptists. 

We  should,  however,  beware  of  placing  too  much  confidence 
in  the  testimony  of  Doctor  Wall,  or  any  other  writer,  respecting 
the  ancient  practice  of  baptizing,  ordinarily,  by  immersion.  For 
many  things  are  affirmed  of  the  practice  of  the  church  in  the 
ages  subsequent  to  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  which  are  not  found, 

15* 


174  MODE   OP   BAPTISM. 

in  the  Bible  ;  and,  for  that  reason,  ought  not  to  be  received.— 
The  Baptists,  in  particular,  ought  to  beware  of  relying  too  much 
on  what  the  above  mentioned  Doctor  says  about'  the  mode  of 
baptism  in  the  early  ages  ;  for  he  tells  us  with  equal  confidence, 
that  the  whole  church,  with  few  exceptions,  for  many  centu- 
ries, practised  infant  baptism.  This  part  ot  his  testimony  they 
reject,  because  they  find  no  scriptural  warrant  for  the  practice. 
The  other  part,  then,  should  be  regarded  with  caution,  and  not 
adopted,  unless  it  decidedly  comports  with  the  Bible.  Under 
these  circumstances,  it  is,  in  itself,  of  little  consequence  to  show 
what  the  Apostolick  practice  was.  If  we  leave  the  Scriptures, 
and  follow  the  traditions  of  men,  we  shall  be  involved  in  great 
darkness  and  inconsistency. 

It  is  far  from  being  proved  from  the  New  Testament  records, 
that  immersion  was  exclusively,  or  even  prevailingly  practised  in 
the  apostolick  age  ;  much  less  that  it  was  considered  essential 
to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance. 

It  is  possible  that  immersion  was  introduced  subsequent  to  the 
times  of  the  Apostles,  under  the  notion  that  it  was  more  expres- 
sive and  emphatick,  or  that  it  would  more  effectually  wash 
away  sin.  For  it  is  manifest,  that  after  the  lapse  of  two  cen- 
turies, or  more,  many  began  to  attribute  an  improper  influence 
to  this  ordinance  ;  supposing  that  it  did  really  cleanse  from  sin, 
and  was  connected  with  immediate  forgiveness  ;  and  that  it 
was,  moreover,  essential  to  salvation.  In  this  view  of  the  case, 
much  water  would  naturally  be  preferred  to  a  little  ;  and,  hence, 
immersion  might  have  been  introduced  in  this  way,  without 
having  the  sanction  of  apostolick  practice.  Why  might  not 
this  have  been  thus  introduced,  as  well  as  many  other  things 
that  then  obtained,  which  were  manifestly  not  scriptural^  and 
which  the  great  body  of  evangelical  Christians  reject  ? 

It  does,  indeed,  appear^  from  the  best  accounts  which  we  have 
of  the  transactions  of  the  church  from  about  the  commencement 
of  the  third  century  to  that  of  the  thirteenth,  that  immersion 
was  commonly  the  mode  of  baptism  ;  but  l  cannot  find  that,  du- 
ring that  period,  it  was,  at  any  time,  considered  essential  to  the 
validity  of  the  ordinance,  or  that  it  was,  at  any  time,  practised 
uniformly.  Those  who  speak  most  positively  merely  say,  it 
was  practised  "  in  the  ordinary  use?'*  But  this  ordinary  use,  for 
the  reasons  above  stated,  might  have  been  an  innovation. 

The  earliest  account  extant  of  the  manner  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, after  the  age  of  the  apostles,  is  that  which  is  given  by 
Justin  Martyr,  in  the  second  century,  in  his  apology  to  the  Em- 
perour,  Antoninus  Pious,  in  the  following  words,  viz. "  And  we 
will  declare  after  what  manner  when  we  were  renewed  by 


MODE    OF   BAPTISM.  175 

Christ,  we  devoted  ourselves  to  God :  lest  omitting  this  we 
should  seem  to  act  a  bad  part  in  this  declaration.  As  many  as 
are  persuaded,  and  believe  the  things  taught  and  said  by  us  to 
be  true,  and  promise  to  live  according  to  them,  are  instructed 
to  pray,  and  to  ask,  fasting,  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins  of  God, 
we  praying  and  fasting  together  with  them.  After  that  they 
are  brought  where  water  is,  and  they  are  regenerated  in  the 
same  way  of  regeneration  as  we  have  been  regenerated  ;  for 
they  are  washed  in  water  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  Lord 
God  of  all,  and  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
In  this  account,  the  leading  idea  attributed  to  baptism  is  a 
washing,  rather  than  that  of  immersion.  He  does  not  say  they 
were  immersed  in  water,  but  washed  in  water. 

But  as  to  the  true  import  of  baptism,  I  would  tely  mainly  up- 
on the  testimonies  which  have  been  produced  from  the  Scrip- 
tures. And  as  long  as  they  do  not  appear  to  make  the  mode  of 
immersion  essential,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  it  is  not  so. 
Washing  in  general  comes  within  the  import  of  baptizo,  and  is 
indeed,  the  principal,  or  leading  idea,  expressed.  Baptism  is 
much  oftener  and  much  more  clearly  represented  as  a  washing 
than  as  a  burial.  Indeed,  it  is  never  directly  called  a  burial, 
though  Christians  were  said  to  be  buried  with  Christ  by  bap- 
tism, but,  here,  it  is  rather  the  cause  of  a  burial  than  the  burial 
itself.  But  baptism  is  plainly  and  repeatedly  represented  as  a 
washing.  Washing  is  actually  one  of  the  meanings  of  the  word 
used  in  the  institution.  Besides,  the  action  of  baptizing  is  sev- 
eral times  denoted  by  another  term  (louo)  which  properly  sig- 
nifies to  wash.     Washing,  then,  in  any  mode,  is  valid  baptism. 

Even  sprinkling  is  a  small  degree  ol  washing,  wetting,  or 
cleansing,  and,  of  course,  valid  ;  though  it  is  not  so  significant, 
and  does  not  so  properly  come  within  the  true  import  of  baptizo, 
as  a  real  washing,  or  the  application  of  water  with  some  degree 
of friction. 

Immersion,  also,  is  a  washing  in  a  larger  sense  than  sprinkling. 
But  it  is  not  so  properly  a  washing,  as  the  applying  of  water  with 
friction,  or  rubbing.  Yet  it  is  a  valid  baptism,  and  truly  a  sig- 
nificant mode  ;  and  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  it  is  not  the 
most  significant ;  but  I  can  see  no  grounds  for  considering  i£ 
essential,  and  it  is  here  that  the  point  at  issue  lies. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  171 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Concluding  arguments  in  favour  of  the  validity  of  all  modes  of 
Baptism. 

It  may  be  further  observed,  that  the  reason  of  the  thing  shows 
that  the  validity  of  baptism  does  not  consist  in  the  quantity  of 
vmter  used,  nor  in  the  mode  of  applying  it. 

One  mode  may,  indeed,  be  more  significant  than  another,  and 
on  that  account  may  be  preferable  ;  but  the  different  modes  in 
use  among  the  churches  all  tend,  essentially,  to  represent  the 
same  thing,  a  renovation  or  cleansing  by  means  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  and  through  the  sanctifying  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
and,  hence,  it  appears  unreasonable,  and  arbitrary,  to  select  one 
of  them  only,  and  say  that  all  the  rest  are  invalid. 

Baptism  is,  at  most,  only  an  outward  purification.  It  has 
no  inherent  influence  to  wash  away  sin.  Its  virtue,  therefore, 
does  not  consist  in  the  quantity  of  water  used  ;  but  in  the  an- 
swer of  a  good  conscience,  which  may  be  possessed  in  the  use  of 
different  modes. 

Again ;  the  gracious  King  of  Zion  does  not  appear  to  make 
any  difference  in  his  treatment  of  those  ministers  and  churches 
who  do  not  practise  immersion,  and  those  who  do.  He  con- 
tinues the  light  of  evangelical  truth  as  clearly,  in  the  former,  as 
in  the  latter  ;  pours  out  his  spirit  as  copiously  upon  them ;  dwells 
in  their  hearts  as  richly ;  communes  with  them  at  his  table  as 
freely ;  blesses  and  prospers  them  as  evidently  ;  and  acknowl- 
edges them,  every  way,  as  his,  with  as  much  "power  and  de- 
monstration of  the  Spirit." 

Hence  we  have  the  testimony  of  God's  providence,  and  the 
seal  of  his  Spirit,  to  the  truth  of  the  foregoing  doctrine.  Cer- 
tainly, the  Lord  does  not  make  any  difference  in  the  numerous 
revivals  of  religion  with  which  the  world  is  blessed,  between 
those  who  do  not  immerse  and  those  who  do  :  to  say  the  least, 
none  that  will  operate  against  the  former. 

And  this  furnishes  evidence  that  both  belong  to  his  Kingdom  ; 
the  former  as  truly  as  the  latter,  and  that  the  mode  of  their  bap- 
tism is  as  valid, 


178  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Surely,  the  abundant  blessings  bestowed  upon  those  who 
wash,  pour,  or  sprinkle  in  baptism  ;  the  honour  which  the  Lord 
puts  upon  their  ministers  and  ordinances ;  his  readiness  to  own 
and  bless  them  as  his  people  ;  and  the  wide-spread  and  lasting 
success  which  attends  the  word  preached  by  and  among  them? 
furnishes  living  testimony  which  is  entitled  to  high  regard,  that 
they  have  a  true  form  of  baptism  ;  that  they  are  a  conspicuous 
and  precious  portion  of  Christ's  visible  kingdom  ;  and  that  this 
dispute  about  the  form  of  applying  water  in  baptism  ought  to  be 
relinquished. 

When  Peter  was  called  to  an  account  by  his  Jewish  breth- 
ren for  u  going  in  unto  the  uncircumcised  Gentiles,  and  eating 
with  them,"  he  justified  himself  by  alleging  that  God  gave 
unto  them  the  like  gift  to  that  which  was  bestowed  upon  the 
Jews,  pouring  out  his  Holy  Spirit  upon  them,  and  "  purifying 
their  hearts  by  faith. "  And  "  what  then,"  said  he,  "  was  I, 
that  I  could  withstand  God  ?" 

In  like  manner,  God's  pouring  out  the  like  gift  upon  those 
who  do  not  immerse,  to  that  which  he  bestows  upon  those  who 
do,  is  a  proper  and  ample  vindication  of  the  liberal  ground  taken 
in  this  work. 


PART  III. 


OPEN  COMMUNION   WITH  ALL    EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANS  IL- 
LUSTRATED AND  DEFENDED. 


CHAPTER   I. 

The  Subject  Explained, 

It  is  not  my  design  to  teach  and  defend  communion  with  all 
,  who  assume  the  title  of  Christians ;  but  with  all  who  exhibit 
4he  essential  characteristicks  of  Christians — with  those  church- 
es and  members  of  churches  who  are  regarded  as  the  true  fol- 
lowers of  Christ. 

There  are  some  that  call  themselves  Christians  who  are  so  de- 
fective in  principle  and  practice  as  not  to  deserve  the  name. 
Simply  professing  the  name  of  Christians  is  not  sufficient  to  en- 
title any  to  Christian  fellowship. 

But  those  churches  and  members  of  churches  that  profess  the 
essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and  maintain  so  much  upright- 
ness of  walk  and  conversation  as  to  give  evidence  of  piety,  are 
entitled  to  the  privilege  of  communion,  and  ought  not  to  be  re- 
'  jected  from  the  table  of  the  Lord. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  point  out  very  minutely  what  parts 
of  Christian  doctrine  must  be  believed,  and  what  degree  of 
Christian  practice  must  be  maintained,  to  constitute  the  charac-  ' 
ter  of  evangelical  Christians.  Eveiy  church  or  class  of  Chris- 
tians must  be  allowed  the  privilege  of  judging  in  this  matter  for 
themselves. 

Some  may  set  the  criterion  of  judging  higher  than  others. 

Christians  may  discover  their  imperfections,  either  in  being  too 

trict  or  too  lax  in  regard  to  judging  of  the  qualifications  of  those 


180  OPEN  COMMUNION. 

who  claim  to  be  their  brethren,  and  desire  communion.  Al- 
though they  are  bound  to  form  their  opinion  of  the  Christian 
character  of  others  according  to  the  rules  and  marks  which  are 
furnished  by  the  scriptures,  they  may,  in  some  instances,  fail  of 
judging  correctly.  Christian  charity  and  fellowship  may  be  ex- 
tended to  some  who  do  not  give  the  requisite  evidence  of  be- 
ing the  disciples  of  Christ,  and  withheld  from  others  that  do. 

But  for  Christians  to  act  consistent  with  themselves,  and  with 
the  principle  now  advocated,  they  should  admit  to  their  com- 
munion such  churches  and  members  of  churches  as  they  deem 
evangelical ;  i.  e.  as  being  the  true  churches  and  members  of 
Christ.  Although  they  may  see  defects  both  in  the  principles 
and  conduct  of  these  brethren,  yet  as  they  are  not  so  gross  as- 
to  preclude  the  idea  of  their  being  Christians,  they  ought  to  ad- 
mit them  to  their  communion.  If  they  exclude  such  from  the 
table  of  their  Lord,  they  are  not  open  communionists  in  the 
sense  now  plead  for. 

In  defending  open  communion  as  now  explained,  I  do  not 
mean  to  be  understood  to  say  that  it  is  not  expedient,  while 
Christians  are  divided  in  opinion,  as  at  present,  to  maintain  se- 
parate societies.  This  may  be,  and  probably  is,  expedient,  and 
most  for  the  edification  of  all.  Christians  may  be  more  useful 
and  happy  in  being  associated  in  separate  churches,  according 
to  their  respective  opinions  on  the  subject  of  religion,  than  to  be 
formed  with  these  discordant  views  into  the  same  church.  Ne- 
vertheless, while  embodied  in  these  separate  societies,  they  may 
hold  communion  with  one  another,  as  opportunity  presents,  and 
in  this  way  manifest  their  .mutual  love,  and  their  oneness  in 
Christ.  Frequent  occasions  offer  for  their  communing  together, 
and  they  should  unquestionably  be  more  frequently  sought  than 
they  are.  Every  church  ought  to  invite  their  Christian  breth- 
ren of  other  churches  who  may  be  present  at  their  commun- 
ion seasons  to  come  and  partake  with  them ;  and  individu- 
al Christians  ought  to  accept  of  the  invitation,  and  also  to  apply 
for  admission  to  this  privilege  when  Divine  Providence  places 
them  in  circumstances  to  enjoy  it.  This  is  the  true  doctrine  of 
open  communion. 

If  any  refuse  to  acknowledge  those  as  Christians  who  actual- 
ly give  the  scriptural  evidence  of  being  such,  and  reject  them 
from  communion  on  that  ground,  they  are  doubtless  chargeable 
with  an  errour ;  but  it  is  a  different  one  from  that  which  consists 
in  rejecting  acknowledged  Christians  from  communion.  In  the 
former  case,  although  there  is  an  errour  committed  in  not  ad- 
mitting of  actual  evidence  of  piety,  there  is  a  consistency  be- 
tween the  belief  and  practice  of  these  Christians  ;  but  in  the 


OPEN  COMMUNION.  181 

iatter  case  there  is  not.     Because  acknowledged  Christians  are 
debarred  from  coming  to  their  Master's  table 

When  the  Christian  character  and  Handing  of  other  Chris- 
tians are  once  admitted,  we  are  bound  to  receive  them  to  our 
communion.  This  is  what  the  doctrine  of  open  communion 
implies,  and  what  I  shall  undertake  to  defend. 


16 


OPEN  COMMUNION.  183 


CHAPTER    II. 

Containing  the  argument  for  Open   Communion  founded  on  the 
Christian  experience  and  character* 

The  fact  that  our  Christian  brethren  of  other  churches  and 
denominations,  are  acknowledged  to  be  the  disciples  of  Christ — 
members  of  the  same  visible  church  with  ourselves,  and  heirs 
of  the  same  kingdom,  at  once  determines  their  right  to  eat 
bread  with  us  at  the  same  table. 

Possessing  this  character,  and  being  viewed  in  this  light,  they 
are,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  entitled  to  Christian  cha- 
rity and  fellowship.  To  this  case  the  following  words  of  Christ 
directly  apply,  John,  xiii.  34,  35  :  "  A  new  commandment  I  give 
unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another  :  as  I  have  loved  you,  that  ye 
also  love  one  another.  By  this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are 
my  disciples,  if  ye  have  love  one  to  another."  Also,  the  fol- 
lowing clause  in  the  institution  of  the  supper,  Luke,  xxii.  19  : 
"  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me."  It  is  obvious  that  these 
commands  are  obligatory  upon  all  the  friends  of  Christ ;  the 
last,  as  truly  as  the  first.  And  the  ordinance  of  the  supper 
being  an  act  of  communion,  the  friends  of  Christ,  as  far  as 
they  have  opportunity,  are  manifestly  bound  to  attend  upon 
it  together,  in  remembrance  of  their  common  Lord  and  Re- 
deemer. This  precept,  especially  in  connexion  with  the 
command  for  brotherly  love,  carries  open  communion  upon  the 
very  face  of  it.  How  preposterous  it  must  be  for  Christians 
to  acknowledge  one  another  as  brethren,  and  yet  refuse  to 
eat  together  at  the  same  table ;  especially,  as  this  is  the 
Lord's  table,  and  not  theirs.  How  can  they  love  one  another, 
as  Christ  has  loved  them,  and  yet  refuse  one  another  Christian 
communion?  The  admission,  by  the  members  of  one  church, 
that  those  of  another  are  Christians,  is,  at  once,  an  acknowledg- 
ment that  they  ate  bound  to  obey  the  above  order  of  Jesus,  as7 
truly  as  themselves,  and  that  in  obeying  it  they  are  equally  ac- 
cepted of  the  Lord.  This  consideration,  then,  manifestly  opens 
the  door  to  celebrate  it  together,  provided  Providence  furnish- 
es the  opportunity.  Nothing  can  be  plainer.  The  master 
whom  they  serve  is  a  common  master  and  Saviour.  Their  duty 
and  privileges  are  common.     Of  course,  the  celebration  in  ques- 


184  OPEN  COMMUNION. 

tion  should  be  common.  Being  fellow  disciples,  they  should  ap- 
proach the  board  of  their  Lord  together.  Surely,  the  one  class 
should  not  say  to  the  other,  you  may  not  come  to  the  Lord's  ta- 
ble with  us.  It  is,  indeed,  your  privilege  to  come,  and  the  Lord 
will  receive  you  ;  but  we  cannot.  You  must  have  a  separate 
table.  We  verily  believe  you  are  Christians;  and  we  esteem 
and  love  you  as  such ;  and  we  expect  to  go  to  heaven,  and  eat 
the  marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb  with  you  ;  but,  as  the  case  is 
now,  we  cannot  participate  of  the  emblems  of  the  broken  body 
and  shed  blood  of  our  common  Saviour  with  you  here.  If  you 
will  have  our  company  at  the  table  of  Jesus,  you  must  adopt 
our  particular  views,  and  join  our  church,  or  denomination  ; 
otherwise,  you  must  stand  by  yourselves,  and  we  by  ourselves. 

Now,  how  palpably  inconsistent  is  this  !  Here  are  Christians, 
redeemed  by  the  same  blood  ;  renewed  by  the  same  Spirit ; 
children  of  the  same  heavenly  Father  ;  believers  in  the  same 
Lord  Jesus  ;  all  living  upon  the  same  forfeited  bounty  ;  one  body 
in  Christ,  and  members,  one  of  another  ;  animated  by  the  same 
hope  ;  and  heirs  of  the  same  everlasting  kingdom;  and,  yet,  they 
cannot  come  to  the  same  table  together!  O  absurdity  in  the 
extreme  !  O  prejudice  and  bigotry  !  what  have  ye  done  ? 

In  addition  to  the  above  precepts  for  brotherly  love,  and  the 
celebration  of  the  supper,  we  have  the  following  injunction  of 
the  inspired  Paul,  which  most  aptly  and  pointedly  relates  to 
this  case  :  Rom.  xv.  7,  "  Wherefore  receive  ye  one  another, 
as  Christ  also  received  us,  to  the  glory  of  God."  Here,  the 
rule  which  is  to  regulate  the  intercourse  and  fellowship  of 
Christians  with  one  another,  is  that  of  Christ's  having  received 
them  ;  and  all  should  be  done  to  the  glory  of  God.  They  are 
bound  by  the  high  and  sacred  authority  of  the  risen  and  exalt- 
ed Jesus,  to  receive  one  another,  as  he  also  hath  received  them. 
The  consideration  that  our  brethren  are  received  of  Christ,  at 
once  determines  it  to  be  our  duty  to  receive  them  too — to  admit 
them  cheerfully  to  our  fellowship,  as  both  we  and  they  enjoy  his. 
It  binds  us  to  welcome  them  to  all  Christian  privileges. 

Here,  the  peculiar  and  blessed  principle  on  which  open  com- 
munion rests  is  stated  and  explained.  It  is  the  love  of  Christ 
to  all  his  people,  and  his  own  example  in  receiving  them  to 
communion  and  favour.  The  order  to  receive  one  another  is 
peremptory  ;  and  the  motives  to  obedience  unspeakably  ten- 
der, forcible  and  endearing.  How  it  is  possible  for  this  princi- 
ple to  be  overlooked,  it  is  hard  to  conceive. 

In  this  passage  there  is  an  important  duty  enjoined  upon 
Christians ;  an  endearing  example  introduced  to  enforce  it ; 
and  the  high  and  dignified  end  to  be  aimed  at  declared.     This 


OPEN  COMMUNION.  186 

principle,  or  rule  of  conduct,  will  remain  as  long  as  the  exam- 
ple which  we  are  required  to  imitate  remains,  and  there  are 
Christian  brethren  to  receive. 

Nor  can  it,  with  any  consistency,  be  said,  that  this  rule  re- 
lates, merely,  to  something  short  of  a  mutual  participation  of 
the  supper,  and  that  we  have  obeyed  it,  when  we  have  acknowl- 
edged our  brethren  as  Christians,  and  conversed  and  prayed 
with  them,  although  we  expressly  decline  being  guests  with 
them  at  the  table  of  the  Lord.  For  it  is  manifest  that  Christ 
receives  both  us  and  them  to  be  guests  with  him  at  his  own  ta- 
ble ;  and,  hence,  if  we  do  not  commune  with  one  another,  we 
do  not  receive  one  another  as  he  hath  received  us.  Has  the 
Lord  granted  us  the  privilege  of  communion  at  the  supper  ? — 
Then  we  must  allow  it  to  them— we  must  permit  them  to  come 
and  eat  with  us ;  or  we,  manifestly,  do  not  receive  them  as  he 
hath  received  us.  As  they  are  the  children  of  God  as  well  as 
we  ;  and  as  we  are  received  by  Christ  to  this  blessed  privilege ; 
so  they  must  be  received  by  us. 

This  receiving  of  one  another  plainly  relates,  not  only  to  the 
less  distinguishing  privileges  of  the  gospel,  but  to  the  high 
and  peculiar  privilege  of  coming  around  the  board  of  Christ, 
and  commemorating  his  dying  love.  Therefore,  we  must 
practise  open  communion,  or  we  do  not  copy  his  example.  It 
is  so  perfectly  obvious,  that  professing  evangelical  Christians 
cannot  refuse  communion  with  one  another  in  this  ordinance, 
and  yet  receive  one  another  as  Christ  hath  received  them,  that 
a  mere  child  can  see  it.  The  closing  of  the  door  to  commun- 
ion by  one  class  of  Christians  against  another,  is  a  palpable  and 
grievous  violation  of  this  rule. 

"  Is  not  the  bread  which  we  break,"  says  the  apostle  Paul, 
"  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  And  is  not  the  wine 
which  we  drink,  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ?" 

Then,  how  obviously  ought  we  all  to  be  partakers  thereof, 
together,  after  the  example  of  the  primitive  Christians. 

In  concluding  this  chapter,  therefore,  I  repeat  the  declara- 
tion, that  the  foundation  for  open  communion,  in  the  sense  plead 
for,  is  laid  in  the  work  of  regeneration — in  the  forming  of  the 
hearts  of  men  to  the  faith  and  love  of  Christ,  whereby  they 
become  Christians.  u  By  one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into/ 
one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles  ;  whether  we  be 
bond  or  tree  ;  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  spirit." 
And  being  thus  one  in  Christ,  we  ought  to  be  of  one  commun- 
ion. 

16* 


OPEN    COMMUNION.  187 


CHAPTER  III. 

Containing  the  argument  for  Open  Communion,  based  upon   the 
principle  that  the  mode  of  baptism  is  not  essential. 

One  of  the  main  pillars  of  the  close  communion  system  is, 
the  opinion  that  there  is  no  valid  baptism  except  by  immers* 
ion.  This  is  that,  in  particular,  which  separates  the  two  great 
bodies  of  Christians,  denominated  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists ; 
or  which  divides  a  very  great  portion  of  them. 

Some  of  the  denomination  of  Baptists  are  in  favour  of 
open  communion ;  but,  in  this  country,  most  of  this  class  are 
what  are  termed  free-will  Baptists.  The  Calvinistick  Bap- 
tists generally  hold  to  close  communion,  i.  e.  they  do  not  re- 
ceive any  to  the  Lord's  table  except  those  of  their  own  faith 
and  order.  Although  they  agree  in  the  great  leading  doc- 
trines of  the  gospel  with  Pedobaptists — particularly  with 
Presbyterians  and  Congregationahsts,  they  will  not  commune 
with  them. 

And  they  justify  their  practice,  upon  the  ground  that  bap- 
tism is  a  prerequisite  to  communion,  and  that  there  is  no  valid 
baptism  except  by  immersion.  They  say  they  cannot,  consist- 
ently, commune  with  Pedobaptists,  because  they  have  not  been 
baptized. 

This  bar  to  open  communion  is  removed,  at  once,  by  show- 
ing that  immersion  is  not  essential  to  the  validity  of  this  or- 
dinance. 

This  is  what  I  have  attempted  to  do,  and  think  I  have  fully 
done,  in  the  second  part  of  this  work,  to  which  the  reader  is 
referred.  It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  the  arguments  there  ad- 
duced. 

The  validity  of  the  different  modes  of  baptism  in  use  among 
the  churches  being  established,  the  principle  of  open  com- 
munion is  easily  defended.  For,  although  some  difficulty 
may  arise  on  account  of  the  baptism  of  infants,  which  I  shall 
endeavour  to  remove,  the  great  objection  in  regard  to  the  mode 
of  administration  is  completely  answered.  None  ought  to  be 
debarred  from  the  table  of  the  Lord,  because  they  have  not 
been  immersed.  To  commune  with  Pedobaptists,  who  have 
simply  been  washed, poured  upon,  or  sprinkled,  is  not  communing 


188  OPEN    COIYIMUNION. 

with  unbaptized  Christians  ;  but  with  those  who  have  been 
duly  baptized,  so  far  as  the  mode  is  respected.  No  objec- 
tion, therefore,  can  lie,  from  this  quarter,  against  open  com- 
munion with  all  evangelical  Christians.  And  if  this  be  a 
true  principle,  it  is  of  high  importance  that  it  should  be  un- 
derstood, and  defended.  The  reader  is  earnestly  requested  to 
consider  candidly  and  impartially  what  hath  been  advanced 
under  this  head. 

Respecting  the  above-mentioned  difficulty  arising  from  the 
performance  of  baptism  in  infancy,  I  would  remark,  that  this 
does  not  pertain  to  all  the  members  of  Pedobaptist  churches  ; 
but,  merely,  to  those  who  have  received  no  other  than  infant 
baptism.  Many  of  the  Pedobaptists  have  received  baptism  in 
adult  age  upon  their  own  profession  of  faith.  These,  therefore, 
may,  upon  the  principle  now  stated,  be  received  to  communion 
without  hesitation. 

The  baptism  performed  in  infancy  is  manifestly  premature* 
It  cannot  be  considered  as  a  complete  gospel  baptism,  or  a*  a 
submission  to  the  ordinance  according  to  the  direction  of  our 
Lord,  and  according  to  its  manifest  design  and  end  ;  although  I 
am  not  disposed  to  consider  it  a  mere  nullity. 

The  action  of  the  officiating  minister  is,  in  itself,  valid,  though 
performed  upon  an  improper  subject.  It  is  a  kind  of  half-way 
baptism  ;  or,  to  speak  more  correctly,  it  is  a  baptism  prema- 
turely performed. 

Hence,  those  Christians  that  have  received  no  other  than 
infant  baptism,  are  not  to  be  considered  altogether  in  the  light 
of  unbaptized  persons,  and  precluded,  on  that  account,  from  the 
communion  ;  but  as  persons  baptized  before  they  were  duly 
qualified,  and  before  they  were  duly  called  upon  to  make  a 
profession  of  their  faith. 

Nevertheless,  if  their  consciences  are  satisfied  with  their 
infant  baptism,  and  they  do  not  feel  the  obligation  of  coming 
forward  personally  to  the  ordinance,  they  ought  not  to  be  de- 
barred from  communion  on  account  of  this  defect  in  their  bap- 
tism. 

The  difficulty  now  stated  is  not  peculiar  to  the  scheme  which 
I  have  adopted.  It  belongs  to  the  scheme  of  Pedobaptists  in 
respect  to  those  baptisms  which  were  performed  upon  the  plan 
of  the  half-way  covenant,  as  it  is  commonly  called,  and  to  those 
performed  upon  the  plan  of  the  indiscriminate  administration 
of  the  ordinance.  According  to  the  prevailing  views  of  Pedo- 
baptists in  this  day,  especially  of  Presbyterians  and  Congrega- 
tionalists,  there  was  a  very  material  defect  in  those  baptisms 3 
viz.  the  want  of  faith  in  the  parents  by  whom  the  children 


OPEN    COMMUNION.  189 

were  offered.  And  very  many  have  scrupled  the  validity  of 
their  baptism  on  this  account.  Yet  such  baptisms  have  gener- 
ally been  considered  valid  by  Pedobaptists.  Few  ministers,  if 
any,  have  consented  to  re-baptize  on  account  of  this  want  of 
faith  in  the  parents. 

If,  therefore,  they  are  consistent  in  allowing  the  validity  of 
those  baptisms,  where  the  faith  of  the  parents,  which  they  hold 
to  be  required  to  give  a  right  to  the  baptism  of  the  children,  is 
wanting,  they  cannot  charge  any  inconsistency  to  my  view  of 
the  baptism  of  infants,  although  their  own  faith,  which  I  hold 
to  be  requisite  to  give  them  a  right  to  the  ordinance,  is  wanting. 
The  cases  are  manifestly  parallel.  I  do  not  admit  the  baptism 
to  be  full  and  perfect  where  the  faith  of  the  subject  is  wanting. 
Neither  do  they,  upon  their  scheme,  where  the  faith  of  the 
parents  is  wanting.  Therefore,  if  they  can  consistently  admit 
Christians  to  communion  notwithstanding  the  latter  defect,  it 
is  manifest  that  f  can  admit  them  notwithstanding  the  former. 

If,  however,  those  who  have  been  baptized  in  infancy  upon 
the  faith  of  their  parents,  are  convinced,  when  they  come  to 
years  of  understanding,  and  are  brought  to  believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  that  it  is  their  duty  to  be  baptized  again,  upon 
their  own  faith,  they  ought  to  be  admitted  to  enjoy  the  privilege. 
The  defect  above  noticed  is  an  adequate  reason  for  repeating 
the  ordinance.  And  it  cannot  be  justly  considered  as  treating 
the  subject  lightly,  or  as  profaning  the  name  of  the  Lord,  to 
perform  baptism  anew  in  the  manner  directed,  when  it  is  disco- 
vered that  it  was  not  so  performed  at  first. 

When  I  first  became  enlightened  to  see  that  believers  are 
the  only  proper  subjects  of  Christian  baptism,  it  was  not  clear 
to  me  that  the  ordinance  ought  to  be  repeated,  notwithstanding 
this  deficiency.  But,  after  due  consideration,  I  perceived  that 
believers  ought  not  to  be  precluded  from  offering  themselves  in 
baptism,  because  their  parents,  through  misapprehension,  had 
previously  offered  them. 

Baptism  is  evidently  a  duty  which  cannot  be  duly  discharged 
by  proxy.  Ii  is  a  matter  in  which  the  subject  is  to  act  in  person, 
and  for  himself ;  openly  submitting  to  the  command  of  Christ, 
and  receiving  the  badge  of  discipleship. 

It  is  a  privilege,  also  ;  a  precious  and  peculiar  privilege,  of  , 
which  the  subject  ought  not  to  be  deprived  by  means  of  the 
mistakes  and  traditions  of  men. 

Moreover,  it  is  a  duty  so  plain  ;  so  positive  ;  and  so  natural, 
under  the  constitution  of  the  gospel ;  and  so  intimately  connect- 
ed with  the  putting  on  of  Christ,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  vront 
to  incline  the  hearts  of  believers  to  obey  it.     I  will  not  say  he 


190  OPEN   COMMUNION. 

does  this  in  all  cases  ;  but  he  does  in  multitudes  of  cases3  and, 
I  believe  I  may  say  commonly.  It  is  one  of  the  first  things 
which  are  wont  to  occupy  the  minds  of  the  newly  converted, 
especially  when  they  contemplate  the  subject  of  following 
Christ  by  an  open  profession  of  religion.  Very  many  of  those 
who  are  called  from  among  Pedobaptist  congregations,  and  who 
have  been  baptized  in  their  infancy,  have  a  desire  to  be  bap- 
tized on  their  own  faith.  This  desire  is  often  expressed,  and 
ministers  are  conversed  with  upon  the  subject ;  and  much  pains 
are  required  to  convince  them  that  their  infant  baptism  will  do. 
It  is  frequently  a  long  time  before  the  desire  to  be  baptized  is 
repressed^  and  in  various  instances  the  mind  is  never  wholly  re- 
lieved. 

Besides  the  instances  of  this  kind  which  are  known,  many 
are  secretly  tried  upon  the  subject,  and  do  not  make  their  difficul- 
ties and  desires  manifest,  because  they  conclude  it  will  be  una- 
vailing :  that  there  is  no  relief  in  their  case,  except  they  with- 
draw from  the  churches  with  which  they  would  wish  to  be  con- 
nected, and  join  in  close  communion,  which  they  are  not  wil- 
ling to  do. 

And  this  desire  among  believers  to  he  baptized,  and  these  em- 
barrassments which  grow  out  of  the  usages  of  Pedobaptist 
churches,  are  evidently  increasing.  The  more  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  poured  out,  and  converts  are  multiplied,  and  the  more  the 
light  of  evangelical  truth  breaks  in  upon  the  world,  the  greater 
the  number  of  persons  who  wish  to  come  forward,  upon  their 
own  profession,  to  Christian  baptism  :  and,  at  the  same  time,  the 
greater  is  the  aversion  to  close  communion. 

This  is  a  subject  which  is  exciting  deeper  and  deeper  inter- 
est in  every  direction.  There  are  multitudes  who  know  not 
how  to  get  by  this  gospel  institution.  And  yet  they  regard  all 
that  are  born  of  God  as  their  brethren,  and  cannot  be  fettered 
with  close  communion.  That  undue  limiting  of  Christian  love, 
sympathy  and  fellowship  to  one's  own  sect  or  party  which  is 
so  lamentably  prevalent,  is  not  a  feature  of  the  young  convert. 
He  loves  all  that  love  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  not  till  he  is  trained 
to  human  systems,  and  loses,  in  a  degree,  the  simplicity  of  his 
first  love,  that  he  learns  to  adopt  the  Shibboleth  of  party. 

Now,  this  early  desire  to  be  baptized  upon  an  open  profes- 
sion of  faith  which  exists  among  the  converted,  is  manifestly 
the  fruit  of  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  And  it  ought 
not  to  be  repressed,  because  the  subjects,  in  many  instances,  have 
been  prematurely  brought  forward  by  their  parents  in  the  help- 
less age  of  infancy,  of  which  transaction  most  are  wholly  un- 
conscious. 


OPEN    COMMUNION.  191 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Containing  the  argument  for    Open  Communion,  based  upon  the 
right  and  privilege  of  private  judgement. 

It  is  a  plain  principle  of  the  word  of  God,  that  Christians 
have  the  right  of  examining  and  judging/or  themselves,  in  mat- 
ters of  religion.  One  has  no  right  to  dictate  to  the  conscience 
of  another. 

It  is  not  meant,  that  every  one  has  a  right,  in  the  sight  of  God, 
to  form  his  own  opinion  of  his  truths  and  precepts.  In  that  re- 
spect he  is  bound  to  construe  things  rightly,  and  really  to  know 
his  Master's  will.  But  the  right  of  private  judgement,  which  is 
plead  for,  pertains  to  us  in  regard  to  our  fellow  Christians.  We 
may  labour  to  instruct  and  convince  others,  and  they,  in  their 
turn,  to  instruct  and  convince  us ;  but  neither  have  the  right  of 
exercising  dominion  over  the  faith  of  the  other.  "  Who  art 
thou,"  says  Paul, il  that  judgest  another  man's  servant  ?  To  his 
own  master  he  standeth,  or  falleth."  The  solemn  truth  that  each 
of  us  shall  give  an  account  of  himself  umo  God,  forbids  the  idea 
that  others  may  judge  for  us,  or  prescribe  to  us  in  matters  of 
religion. 

Therefore,  in  the  case  before  us,  one  class  of  believers  have 
as  good  a  right  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  valid  baptism  as 
another.  If  the  one  come  forward  and  say  that  they  have  been 
baptized  into  Christ,  and  are  otherwise  entitled  to  Christian 
charity,  they  are  to  be  admitted  to  communion  by  the  other, 
upon  this  declaration,  although  they  have  not  been  baptized 
according  to  their  views  of  the  institution.  The  latter,  having 
no  right  to  exercise  dominion  over  the  faith  of  the  former,  are 
bound  to  receive  them  upon  the  principle  that,  in  their  own 
opinion,  they  have  been  baptized,  and  that  the  right  of  judging 
in  the  case/or  themselves,  is  one  of  which  they  cannot  be  divest- 
ed. If  they  should  be  refused  the  privilege  of  coming  to  the 
table,  this  would  be,  at  once,  exercising  a  lordship  over  their 
consciences,  which  is  not  admissible. 

Should  it  be  said  that  this  principle  will  oblige  us  to  receive 
all  who  apply  for  communion,  however  gross  their  opinions  or 
conduct  may  be ;  I  would  reply,  that  it  will  not,  for  this 


192  OPEN    COMMUNION. 

reason  :  we  are  bound  to  receive  none  to  our  charity  and  fel- 
lowship, but  such  as  appear  to  be  Christians :  and  the  opinions 
and  conduct  of  some  may  be  so  perfectly  at  variance  with  the 
truths  and  precepts  of  the  gospel,  as  to  forbid  the  idea  of  their 
being  Christians.  In  that  case  they  are  not  entitled  to  com- 
munion. 

Those  differences  among  Christians  which  are  to  be  borne 
with,  respect  merely  such  things  as  are  not  essential — i.  e. 
such  as  may  be  differently  viewed  without  destroying  the 
Christian  character,  and  excluding  the  hope  of  salvation. 

And  here,  I  say,  the  right  of  private  judgement  is  secured,  and 
is  very  sacred.  And  the  responsibility  rests  on  each  one  person- 
ally. So  that  even  if  others  should  prove  to  have  been  in  an 
errour,  our  receiving  them  to  Christian  fellowship,  upon  the 
principle  stated,  will  not  implicate  us.  They,  alone,  are  an- 
swerable. 

Should  it  be  further  said  in  support  of  the  practice  of  close 
communion,  that  we  are  commanded  to  "  withdraw  from  every 
brother  that  walketh  disorderly,"  I  would  reply,  that  "  with- 
drawing," in  this  passage,  manifestly  means  the  same  as  excom- 
munication— the  same  kind  of  treatment  which  is  denoted  by 
the  following  expressions  :  "  Let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  hea- 
then man  and  a  publican  ;"  "  note  that  man  and  have  no  com- 
pany with  him  that  he  may  be  ashamed  ;"  and  "  with  such  an 
one,  no,  not  to  eat."  And,  therefore,  the  disorderly  walking 
intended  cannot  be  the  minor  errors  and  faults  of  Christian  pro- 
fessors ;  but  those  which  are  gross,  and  which,  if  persisted  in, 
destroy  the  Christian  character.  If  we  were  to  withdraw  from 
others  for  every  thing  defective  in  their  principles,  or  practice, 
there  would  be  an  end  to  Christian  communion  in  this  world  : 
il  for  there  is  not  a  just  man  upon  earth  that  doeth  good  and 
sinneth  not."  Why  should  the  Baptists  withdraw  from  the 
Pedobaptists,  because  they  have  not,  in  their  opinion,  been 
regularly  baptized,  when,  allowing  that  they  are  right  in  this 
opinion,  they  have  other  defects  themselves,  as  great  as  this  ? 
Let  it  not  be  said  that  the  passage  alluded  to  relates  particularly 
to  church  order,  and  not  to  sins  and  errours  in  general.  For  it 
cannot  be  reasonably  supposed  that  a  breach  of  church  order  is 
a  worse  evil  than  any  other,  and,  consequently,  to  be  treated 
with  marked  disapprobation.  It  is,  manifestly,  as  disorderly, 
in  the  sense  of  this  passage,  to  break  the  Sabbath ;  to  be  world* 
lyminded,  uncharitable  and  selfish,  and  to  exclude  those  whom 
Christ  receives,  as  it  is  to  fail  of  practising  the  right  mode  of 
baptism,  or  to  administer  this  ordinance  to  improper  subjects. 
Why,  then,  should  the  command  to  withdraw  be  restricted  to 


OPEN    COMMUNION.  193 

a  breach  of  church  order.  There  is,  obviously,  no  reason  for 
this  restriction.  The  rule  will  apply  equally  to  all  kinds  of 
unchristian  conduct ;  but  will  not  oblige  the  churches  to  ex- 
communicate their  brethren  for  slight  errours  and  misdemeanors  ; 
but  for  those,  only,  which  are  gross^  and  which  strike  at  the  ve- 
ry foundation  of  the  Christian  character  ;  although  they  should 
admonish  one  another  daily  for  their  lesser  failings. 


19 


194 


OPEN  COMMUNION. 


CHAPTER  V. 


Containing  the  argument  for  Open  Communion,  based  upon  the 
consideration  that  although  baptism  was  manifestly  intended  to 
precede,  in  the  order  of  nature,  the  commemoration  of  Christ's 
death  in  the  ordinance  of  the  supper;  it  does  not  appear  that 
we  have  a  warrant  to  insist  upon  it  as  an  indispensable  pre- 
requisite in  all  cases. 

Should  the  two  last  mentioned  grounds  of  open  communion 
fail  in  the  opinion  of  any,  this,  for  aught  appears,  might  be  ta- 
ken as  the  last  resort.  None,  however,  will  understand  me  as 
giving  up  either  of  those  grounds,  or  as  considering  them,  in  any 
wise,  suspicious ;  for  they  appear  to  be  sound  and  good  :  but  all 
may  not  regard  them  in  that  light.  If,  therefore,  there  be  any 
remaining  ground  for  open  communion  which  those  may  take 
who  cannot  adopt  either  of  the  others,  it  is  important  that  it 
should  be  fairly  exhibited.  For  the  sake,  therefore,  of  reliev- 
ing this  class,  it  is  stated,  that  it  does  not  appear  that  we  are 
warranted  to  insist  on  baptism,  in  ail  cases,  as  an  indispensable 
prerequisite  to  communion.  It  is,  indeed,  plainly  commanded. 
It  is,  moreover,  a  badge  of  discipleship,  and  a  regular  door  of  en- 
trance into  the  visible  church ;  and,  consequently,  it  is,  in  the 
order  of  nature,  prior  to  communion.  Nevertheless,  it  does  not 
appear  that  it  is,  in  all  cases,  of  such  absolute  and  indispensable 
necessity,  that  none  may  be  admitted  to  communion  except  such 
as  are  considered  regularly  baptized. 

The  ground  now  stated,  is  the  one  which  some  who  conceive 
immersion  to  be  the  only  valid  baptism,  do  actually  take  :  and 
although  open  communion  may  be  maintained  upon  operand  bet- 
ter grounds,  as  I  have  already  shown,  this  is  inexpressibly  bet- 
ter than  close  communion.  The  principle  of  open  communion 
with  all  evangelical  Christians  is  so  evidently  agreeable  to  the 
general  structure,  spirit  and  design  of  the  gospel,  that  it  must 
liave  some  valid  reason,  or  reasons,  to  support  it,  whether  we 
are  able  to  discover  them  or  not.  And,  if  we  should  fail  to  as- 
sign the  true  and  proper  reason,  or  reasons,  it  surely  cannot  be 
wrong  to  receive  those  whom  Christ  receives  himself;  for  the 
apostolick  rule,  before  mentioned,  binds  us  to  receive  one 
another,  as  Christ  also  received  us,  to  the  glory  of  God.  This, 
at  once,  settles  the  principle  of  open  communion,  as  above  ex- 
plained. 


OPEN  COMMUNION.  195 

Hence,,  those  brethren  who  regard  immersion  as  the  only 
valid  baptism,  may  receive  to  their  communion,  under  certain 
circumstances,  such  as  they  consider  unbaptized  Christians, 

There  is  manifestly  a  wide  difference  between  the  cases  of 
those  who  believe  immersion  to  be  the  only  valid  baptism,  and 
yet  apply  for  communion  without  it,  and  of  those  who  do  not 
believe  this  mode  essential,  but  have  submitted  to  the  ordi- 
nance in  another  form,  and  verily  believe  themselves  duly  bap- 
tized. To  admit  the  former  to  communion  without  baptism, 
would  be  tolerating  them  in  the  neglect  of  a  known  and  ac- 
knowledged duty,  which  would  be  inconsistent ;  but  in  the 
latter  case,  the  neglect  is  not  wilful,  allowiug  these  persons  to 
be  in  an  errour :  for  they  do  verily  believe  that  they  have 
complied  with  the  order  of  Christ.  Therefore,  such  may  be 
received  to  the  Lord's  table  by  those  who  cannot  regard  them 
as  regularly  baptized.  They  ought  not  to  insist  that  they  should 
be  immersed,  or  otherwise  be  debarred  from  Christian  com- 
munion. If  they  are  judged  to  be  fit  subjects  in  every  other 
respect  than  their  not  having  been  immersed,  and  they  are 
willing  and  desirous  to  obey  the  Lord  in  the  ordinance  of  the 
supper,  although  they  feel  not  their  obligation  to  be  plunged  in 
water,  they  ought  to  be  received.  The  right  of  admission  is 
one  which  they  enjoy  as  the  children  of  God  and  heirs  of  the 
kingdom. 

Let  it  not  be  said,  here,  that  no  uncircumcised  person  was 
permitted  to  eat  of  the  passover  ;  and  therefore  no  unbaptized 
person  should  be  permitted,  under  any  circumstances,  to  eat  of 
the  Lord's  supper,  for  the  institutions  are  different ;  therefore 
the  rule  in  the  former  case  will  not  apply  in  the  latter.  And 
this  argument  ought  never  to  be  plead,  especially  by  those  who 
regard  the  Lord's  supper  as,  in  no  measure,  a  substitute  for  the 
passover.  The  institutions  are  not  only  different,  but  both 
positive;  and,  hence,  each  rests. on  its  own  basis.  We  cannot 
rightly  argue  from  the  one  to  the  other,  any  more  than  in  the  case 
of  circumcision  and  baptism. 

And  when  we  come  to  consider  the  institution  of  baptism, 
by  itself,  where  do  we  find  it  asserted  that  no  unbaptized  per- 
son, under  any  circumstances,  shall  eat  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 
1  have  not  found  any  such  prohibition. 

I  have,  indeed,  found  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  consists  of 
a  select  company  of  disciples,  and  that  these  were  directed  to 
be  initiated  by  baptism  ;  but  I  have  not  found  that  no  one  may 
be  permitted  to  obey  Christ's  order  to  attend  upon  the  supper 
in  remembrance  of  him,  who  is  considered  as  not  haviug  sub- 
mitted regularly  to  baptism.     Although  he  be  viewed  as  not 


J  96  OPEN  COMMUNION. 

having  come  into  the  visible  church  by  the  appointed  door,  but 
as  having,  through  misconception ,  entered  some  other  way, 
shall  he,  for  this,  be  refused  the  children's  bread,  when  all 
perceive  him  to  be  one  of  their  number,  and  that  Christ  has 
received  him  ?  In  a  judgement  of  charity,  he  has  entered  the 
invisible  church,  through  the  appointed  door,  which  is  not  bap- 
tism, but  Christ  himself.  He  has  believed  on  him  for  justifica- 
tion, and  been  born  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  inconceivably  more 
important  than  to  be  born  of  water.  Shall  he,  therefore,  be 
refused  the  bread  of  his  God  and  Saviour,  and  turned  out  of 
doors,  because  he  is  considered  as  not  having  entered  the  visible 
church  by  the  appointed  medium,  or  by  submitting  to  be  im- 
mersed? This  would  seem  to  be  making  a  greater  account  of 
the  outward  baptism  than  of  regeneration  itself. 

And  the  rejection  of  the  brother  from  communion  in  this 
case  is  the  more  inconsistent,  because  he  verily  believes  himself 
to  be  baptized,  and  to  have  come  into  the  church  in  the  way 
appointed. 

We  can  hardly  suppose  a  case  in  which  a  person  would 
deem  it  his  duty,  if  properly  instructed,  to  come  to  the  Lord's 
table,  without  submitting  to  baptism  in  some  form,.  There  are 
indeed  a  few  cases,  it  is  said,  in  the  Methodist  denomination,  of 
persons  being  admitted  to  the  communion  without  any  baptism 
whatever.  But  this,  one  would  think,  must  be  owing  to  the 
want  of.  a  due  consideration  of  the  subject. 

It  is  possible,  however,  for  a  person  to  conceive  it  his  duty  to 
celebrate  the  Lord's  supper,  and  yet,  after  being  instructed,  have 
no  conviction  of  the  duty  of  baptism.  Should  such  a  case 
happen,  it  would  be  more  consistent  with  the  general  principles 
of  the  gospel  to  receive  him  than  to  reject  him.  But  what  might 
be  admissible  in  such  an  extreme  case,  could  not  be  reasonably 
plead  as  a  rule  in  common  cases. 

The  cases  which  ordinarily  occur  are  those  of  persons  who 
have  received  what  thty  call  Christian  baptism  ;  but  it  not  be- 
ing by  immersion,  the  brethren  now  alluded  to  cannot  consider  it 
valid.  Nevertheless  I  say,  they  may  and  ought  to  receive  them 
to  communion.  Both  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  are  com- 
mands binding  on  all  the  children  of  God.  It  is,  therefore,  un- 
reasonable to  debar  a  particular  class  of  them  from  the  latter, 
because  they  appear  to  have  misapprehended  their  duty  respect- 
ing the  former. 

It  is,  indeed,  said,  John,  iii.  5,  that  "  except  a  man  be  born 
of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  ot 
God,"  in  which  passage,  reference  appears  to  be  had  both  to 
baptism  and  regeneration.     But  it  cannot  be  the  meaning  that  no 


OPEN  COMMUNION.  197 

person,  under  any  circumstance,  can  go  to  heaven  without  water 
baptism ;  nor  that  no  person  can  enter  the  visible  church  without 
being  bom  of  the  Spirit ;  but  that  both  these  qualifications  are 
requisite  to  a  regular  and  approved  standing  in  the  gospel 
church.  Although  a  person  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  glory 
without  being  born  of  the  Spirit,  it  is  evident  that  he  can  enter 
the  visible  church  without  it.  Accordingly,  we  read  of  one  in 
the  parable  of  the  marriage  of  the  king's  son,  who  came  into  the 
house  without  a  wedding  garment,  and  of  foolish  virgins  who 
took  no  oil  in  their  vessels  with  their  lamps,  as  well  as  of  wise 
virgins  who  did. 

If,  therefore,  notwithstanding  this  declaration,  a  person  can 
enter  the  visible  kingdom  of  God  in  this  world,  without  being 
born  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  most  essential  qualification,  he 
may  enter,  for  aught  appears,  without  the  other  qualification : 
i.e.  he  may  be  admitted  into  the  society  of  saints,  and  be  num- 
bered with  them,  especially  if  he  appears  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit, 
without  receiving  what  is  deemed  a  regular  baptism.  Admit 
that  he  ought  to  be  baptized  by  immersion — Christians  ought  to  do 
many  things  which  they  do  not  do,  and  yet  their  Christian  char- 
acter is  not  annulled. 

No  one  ought  to  enter  the  visible  church  without  regeneration  ; 
yet  some,  as  it  has  been  observed,  do  enter  without  it.  Yea, 
some  enter,  and  are  allowed  to  enter  into  some  churches,  with- 
out so  much  as  making  a  profession  of  regeneration!  Simply 
the  obligation,  therefore,  to  enter  by  regular  baptism,  will  not 
preclude  the  possibility  of  entering  without  it.  Through 
mistake  on  the  part  of  the  applicants,  or  on  the  part  of  the  min- 
ister and  churches,  members  may  be  received  who  have  not  all 
the  qualifications  demanded.  Yet,  notwithstanding  they  have 
not  entered  in  the  way  and  manner  prescribed,  in  all  respects, 
they  are  to  be  considered  as  in ;  and  while  they  walk  worthy, 
they  should  be  retained  as  members,  and  be  admitted  to  all  the 
privileges  of  members. 

The  passage  under  consideration,  as  it  respects  the  necessity 
of  baptism,  can  mean  no  more  than  that  baptism  is  an  appoint- 
ed  badge  of  discipleship ,  and  a  regular  door  of  entrance  into  the 
church.  It  contains  a  rule  of  duty  which  Christians  are 
bound  to  observe. 

Yet,  it  will  not  follow  that  a  person  cannot,  through  mistake 
as  to  the  nature  of  this  precept,  come  into  the  visible  church 
without  duly  obeying  it,  and  be  consistently  allowed  to  partake 
of  the  supper  in  remembrance  of  Christ.  It  does  not  appear 
that  we  are  to  regard  baptism  in  all  cases  indispensable  to  com- 
munion.    But  those  who  exhibit  the  essential  marks  of  disci- 

1.7* 


198  OPEN  COMMUNION. 

pleship,  and  desire  to  be  admitted  to  the  supper,  although  tfiefi 
manner  of  entering  the  church  is  regarded  as  defective,  ought  to 
be  received.  The  spirit  of  the  command  is  answered  in  this 
case,  if  the  letter  is  not.  We  ought  not  to  debar  our  brethren 
from  one  ordinance  and  privilege,  because  they,  through  mistake, 
exclude  themselves  from  another.  But  being  children,  they 
should  have  a  place  among  the  children,  and  be  allowed  to  eat 
at  their  father's  table. 

Although,  therefore,  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  evangelical 
Christians,  in  whatever  way  they  may  ha<e  been  baptized, 
should  be  admitted  to  communic;..  on  the  ground  that  any 
mode  of  baptism  is  valid  ;  and  that  this  is  the  true  ground  of 
admission,  in  connexion  with  the  evidence  of  their  piety — 
ground  which  can,  and  ought  to  be  defended  :  and  that  if  any, 
however,  are  not  satisfied  with  this  ground,  they  should  receive 
their  brethren,  though  not  baptized  according  to  their  views 
of  the  subject,  upon  their  own  declaration  that  they  are  bap- 
tized, because  they  have  the  right  of  private  judgement  in  the 
case :  yet,  if  any  deem  both  these  grounds  inadequate,  they 
may  receive  their  fellow  Christians  to  communion  on  the  prin- 
ciple last  stated  ;  viz  that  we  are  not  warranted  to  insist  on  bap- 
tism, in  all  cases,  as  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  communion. 
If  the  defect  in  question,  allowing  it  to  be  real,  will  not,  under 
the  circumstances  stated,  exclude  them  from  heaven,  and  does 
not  exclude  them  from  the  fellowship  of  Jesus  in  this  world,  it 
ought  not  to  exclude  them  from  the  fellowship  of  their  Christian 
brethren.  They  have  the  essential  prerequisite,  a  new  heart,  or 
appear  to  have,  and,  therefore,  must  be  admitted. 

Especially,  does  the  duty  of  open  communion  appear  to  be 
binding,  when  we  take  into  consideration  the  whole  subject  as 
it  has  been  exhibited,  and  give  to  the  several  reasons  which 
have  been  assigned  their  just  weight. 

I  have  shown  that  the  foundation  for  this  practice  is  laid  in 
the  renovating  work  of  the  Spirit,  by  which  Christians  are 
brought  into  the  same  spiritual  family. 

That  water  applied,  in  any  form,  in  the  name  of  the  sacred 
Trinity,  is  valid  baptism. 

That  all  Christians  have  the  right  of  private  judgment,  and 
none  ought  to  lord  it  over  the  consciences  of  their  brethren  ;  and 
therefore,  they  ought  to  receive  one  another  to  communion  on 
iheir  respective  testimony  as  to  their  baptism. 

And,  that  those  who  cannot  consider  any  other  baptism  va- 
lid except  immersion,  and  cannot  be  satisfied  with  either  ol 
these  grounds,  may  receive  those  who  have  not  been  immersed, 
upon  the  principle,  that  baptism  is  not  an  indispensable  prere- 
quisite to  communion  in  all  cases. 


OPEN    COMMUNUffi.\v*      oF  THE        J#t 

So  that  in  every  view  of  the  subject,  the  duty  is  manifestly 
obligatory.  There  are  reasons  in  favour  of  it  which  are  adapt- 
ed to  the  particular  views  and  circumstances  of  ail  Christians. 
If  one  class  of  Christians  cannot  admit  theff^wSfchf  t  fitti  com  - 
munion  on  one  of  the  above  grounds,  they  can  on  another.  So 
that  the  cruel  bars,  which  have  been  so  long  kept  up,  ought  to 
be  taken  down. 

It  is  truly  a  sore  evil  that  Christians  should  withhold  fellow- 
ship from  one  another.  It  is  one  of  the  greatest  stumbling 
blocks  which  are  laid  before  the  world  It  is  a  constant  occa- 
sion of  reproach,  and  of  triumph,  on  the  part  of  the  enemy. — 
There  is  something  so  unnatural  in  it — so  contrary  to  the  alleged 
spirit  of  Christianity — so  inconsistent  with  the  representa- 
tion that  Christians  are  one  in  Christ — so  different  from  the 
descriptions  which  are  given  of  the  church,  at  first,  when  "  the 
multitude  of  them  that  believed  were  of  one  heart  and  of  one 
soul"— so  contra; y  to  that  special  precept  of  Jesus  that  his  dis- 
ciples should  M  love  one  another" — so  perfectly  at  variance 
with  his  own  example— and  so  ruinous  in  its  tendency  ;  that 
every  observing  mind  must  see  the  absurdity  of  it,  and  every 
tender-hearted  Christian  must  bleed  and  mourn.  How  can  any, 
that  truly  prefer  Jerusalem  above  their  chief  joy,  be  content 
with  such  a  state  of  things  ?  How  can  ministers  and  Christians 
look  on,  with  indifference,  and,  instead  of  seriously  labouring  to 
remove  the  evil,  rather  lend  their  influence  to  increase  it,  being 
consent  that  some  little  thing — some  mode,  or  tradition,  should 
be  the  occasion  of  keeping  them  apart,  and  of  presenting  them 
in  hostile  array  against  each  other  ? 

Why  is  not  the  subject  more  thought  of?  Why  do  not  Chris- 
tians labour  more  assiduously  to  remove  this  reproach  from  the 
church  of  God  ?  Why  do  not  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  espe« 
eially,  make  more  powerful  efforts  to  bring  about  an  union 
among  Christians?  The  work  belongs  more  eminently  to 
them  than  to  others  ;  inasmuch  as  they  are  leaders  of  the 
church,  and  as  their  own  discordant  views  are  the  principal 
means  of  keeping  the  bars  up. 

Painful  as  the  truth  is,  it  is  owing  more  to  the  stand  which 
the  ministers  of  the  gospel  have  taken,  and  to  the  influence 
which  they  exert,  that  this  evil  exists,  than  to  any  thing  which 
pertains  to  the  churches.  Only  let  "  the  watchmen  see  eye  to 
eye,"  and  their  flocks  would  readily  unite  in  Christian  com- 
munion. 

Therefore,  it  becomes  them,  especially,  to  examine  the  sub- 
ject, andtobreak  down  the  separating  wall.  It  becomes  them 
to  weep  over  the  desolations  of  Zion  ;  to  be  deeply  affected 


20fc)  OPEN    COMMUNION. 

with  the  subject  of  these  alienations  and  collisions,  and  of  this 
defaced  beauty  of  the  church  ;  and  to  arise  and  labour  with  one 
accord,  for  the  introduction  of  a  better  state  of  thiDgs. 

Let  them  candidly  and  soberly  meet  the  existing  evil ;  exa- 
mine it  minutely  ;  and  see  what  can  be  done.  And  let  them 
diligently  apply  the  means  of  reformation— the  healing  reme- 
dies which  are  required  ;  and  never  rest,  till  the  object  is  gained 
— till  evangelical  Christians  are  of  one  heart  and  of  one  soul ; 
and  till  they  walk  together  in  the  due  order  and  fellowship  of 
the  gospel. 

The  present  is,  on  various  accounts,  a  favourable  time  for 
both  ministers  and  private  Christians  to  labour  in  this  cause. — 
There  are  many  indications  in  Providence  favourable  to  efforts 
of  this  kind.  There  is  already  a  more  liberal  feeling  among  the 
different  churches  than  there  was  formerly ;  revivals  of  religion 
are  more  frequent  and  powerful ;  and  £<  the  set  time  to  favour 
Zion"  seems  to  be  rapidly  approaching,  when  the  knowledge 
of  Jesus  shall  fill  the  whole  earth.  Moreover,  many  are  ex- 
tremely tried  on  the  subject  of  close  communion,  and  are  anx- 
iously looking  for  the  period  of  its  removal ;  and  the  example 
of  open  communion  is  already  worthily  set  by  those  missiona- 
ries of  different  denominations  which  have  gone  to  heathen 
lands.  I  believe  it  is  a  well  authenticated  fact,  that  Baptist  and 
Pedobaptist  missionaries  commune  together  on  the  shores  of 
India.  (And,  surely,  they  would  make  a  forbidding  appear- 
ance among  the  heathen,  if  they  did  not.)  And  if  ministers 
and  members  of  these  respective  denominations  can  commune 
together  there,  why  not  here  ?  Why  not  in  every  part  of  the  world  ? 

Moreover  ;  there  is  an  increased  spirit  of  inquiry  prevailing, 
and  knowledge  is  increasing  ;  and  former  customs  and  prejudi- 
ces are  giving  way.  Many  things  which  once  seemed  imprac- 
ticable have  been  achieved  ;  and  small,  but  well-directed  efforts, 
have  eventually  met  with  astonishing  success.  There  are  also 
great  overturnings  both  in  the  moral  and  political  world. 

Now  all  these  things  evince  the  present  to  be  an  important 
period  for  Christian  effort.  The  interest  of  the  churcli  should 
be  regarded  with  more  intense  feeling  than  has  heretofore  been 
possessed  ;  and  all  should  labour  more  assiduously  to  remove 
the  stumbling  blocks  ;  to  cast  up  the  way  ;  and  to  restore  the 
church  to  her  primitive  purity. 

The  principle  which  I  have  advocated  is,  unquestionably, 
desirable.  Every  humble  follower  of  Christ  would  be  delight- 
ed to  see  the  church  one :  he  can  but  long  to  see  the  time  when 
all  that  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  can  consistently  sit  down 
together  and  commemorate  his  dying  love,  and  when  they  shall 
truly  regard  and  treat  one  another  as  brethren. 


OPEN  COMMUNION.  201 

Believing  that  the  true  principles  of  open  communion  have 
been  stated  and  defended  in  this  work,  it  is  my  ardent  desire 
and  prayer  that  the  effort  may  be  successful ;  that  it  may  be  the 
means  of  exciting  more  attention  to  the  subject ;  and  of  calling 
forth  the  labours  of  more  able  pens  ;  that  each  denomination 
will  dulv  examine  the  points  of  difference  between  them,  and 
remove  tliem  'as  far  as  practicable,  by  renouncing  each  its  own  er- 
rours;  that  minor  differences  which,  in  this  imperfect  state, 
cannot  be  wholly  removed,  may  be  borne  with  so  as  not  to  break 
their  fellowship  in  Christ ;  and  that  there  may  be  a  continual  ad- 
vance in  doctrinal  purity,  and  practical  godliness  in  the  church., 
until  the  whole  earth  is  filled  with  the  glory  of  our  common  Lord. 

And,  here,  1  must  take  the  liberty  to  state,  that  it  is  manifestly 
the  duty  of  the  friends  of  the  system  whch  has  been  illustra- 
ted, to  come  out,  and  take  a  more  firm  and  decided  stand  than 
heretofore. 

It  may  not  be  their  duty  to  secede  from  their  respective 
churches,  provided  they  can  have  their  just  influence  therein, 
and  be  permitted  to  labour  in  the  cause  of  reformation  ;  and, 
provided  their  continued  connexion  with  them  will  best  advance 
their  individual  and  the  publick  interest. 

But,  it  is  manifestly  important  that  the  light  should  not  be  hid . 

These  brethren  have  an  equal  right  of  speaking  and  acting, 
in  regard  to  what  they  believe  to  be  truth  and  duty,  that  others 
have,  and  they  are  under  the  same  obligations  to  the  Redeemer 
to  make  his  will  known,  and  to  correct  whatever  is  amiss. 

The  portion  of  the  churches  who  imbibe  the  preceding 
views,  is  very  considerable,  and  they  have  been  silent  long 
enough,  and  long  enough  satisfied  with  mere  toleration.  It  is 
time  that  their  voices  were  heard  in  defence  of  believers'*  baptism 
and  open  communion. 

The  period  has,  manifestly,  arrived,  when  every  friend  to 
this  cause  should  declare  himself  as  such,  and  openly  and  firmly 
defend  it.  How  are  the  evils  of  infant  baptism  and  close  com- 
munion to  be  put  away,  except  by  a  strenuous  and  united  effort 
of  those  who  see  them  to  be  unscriptural,  relying  on  the  bless- 
ing of  God  ?  Shall  their  being  placed  in  a  delicate  situation 
deter  them  ?  Shall  the  fear  of  displeasing  their  brethren  of  the 
opposite  opinions,  or  of  making  a  breach  in  the  churches,  or  of 
incurring  loss,  inconvenience,  opposition  and  reproach,  keep 
them  from  bearing  testimony  in  the  case  ?  What  would  have 
become  of  the  church,  if  such  motives  had  kept  the  friends  oi 
reformation  from  advocating  it  openly  and  boldly  ?  If  we  are 
to  make  no  attempt  at  reformation  but  what  can  be  done  quietly 
and  peaceabhj — without  hurting  the  feelings  of  brethren,  and 


202  OPEN   COMMUNION, 

without  making  any  divisions,  depend  upon  it,  we  shall  never 
do  auy  thing  of  consequence.  Was  ever  any  material  errour 
corrected  without  a  struggle  ?  Was  ever  any  attempt  made  at 
reformation,  either  in  doctrine  or  practice,  but  what  met,  from 
some  quarter  or  other,  with  opposition  and  reproach  ?.  How 
was  it  with  Luther  and  Calvin  ?  How  was  it  with  the  Dis- 
senters in  England  ?  How  was  it  with  Edwards,  Bellamy,  and 
others  in  our  own  land,  who  laboured  to  reform  the  errours  in- 
troduced into  the  church,  in  regard  to  the  qualifications  for  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  in  regard  to  the  half-way  covenant  plan  of 
baptizing  children  ?  All  these  reformers  were  opposed  ;  yea, 
opposed  with  concert  and  determination. 

It  does  not  appear  to  be  the  intention  of  Providence  that  truth 
should  prevail  over  errour  without  a  conflict.  If  reformers 
should  wait  till  the  church  generally  should  admit  their  plans, 
without  opposition,  they  would  never  proceed  at  all  in  any  case 
of  material  importance. 

But,  in  order  to  success,  errour  must  be  attacked  boldly,  with 
the  expectation  that  it  will  be  defended  to  the  last.  The  point 
or  points  of  reformation  must  be  plainly  stated,  and  faithfully 
supported,  and  pressed,  and  all  consequences  be  left  with  God. 

The  several  considerations,  therefore,  just  stated,  should  not 
deter  the  friends  of  the  cause  herein  plead,  from  exerting,  and 
coming  out  boldly.  Believing  these  doctrines  to  be  important, 
they  should  prepare  to  support  them,  and  claim  the  natural, 
civil,  and  Christian  right  of  being  heard  in  their  defence. — 
While  all  hard  aud  uucharitable  feelings  and  opprobrious  epi- 
thets should  be  carefully  avoided,  they  should  speak  clearly 
and  persuasively ;  gird  on  the  harness;  and  advance  coolly  and 
resolutely  forward,  whatever  may  oppose.  They  should  avoid 
injuring  the  feelings  of  brethren,  or  disturbing  the  publick 
peace,  as  far  as  may  be  consistent  with  advocating  the  truth  ; 
but  they  must  not  conceal  the  knowledge  which  they  have  of 
the  Redeemer's  will ;  nor  forbear  to  labour,  vigorously  and 
unitedly,  to  put  away  the  aforesaid  evils  ;  and  to  break  down 
the  middle  walls  of  partition  between  the  friends  of  God. 

I  repeat  the  observation,  that  the  period  has  come  to  defend 
the  scheme  illustrated  and  advocated  in  this  work.  Already 
the  number  of  its  friends  is  very  considerable,  who  are  spread 
abroad  through  the  land.  Why  should  they  keep  any  longer 
concealed,  or  remain  inactive,  and  under  bonds?  Why  should 
they  forbear  to  show  their  opinion,  when  others  of  the  opposite 
class  do  not  hesitate  to  show  theirs,  and  to  maintain  it  with  all 
their  strength  ?  Must  they  keep  in  the  dark,  and  continue  to 
weep  in  secret  over  these  evils,  till  their  brethren  permit  them. 


OPEN    COMMUNION.  203 

to  come  forth,  and  till  they  will  consent  to  make  no  opposition 
to  their  plans  of  reformation  ?  Must  the  multitude,  who  this 
moment  desire  gospel  baptism,  without  consenting,  either  to 
the  baptism  of  infants,  or  to  close  communion,  be  obliged  to  be 
deprived  of  the  privilege  of  this  ordinance,  or  be  impelled  for- 
ward where  they  do  not  feel  free  to  go  ?  Must  the  many  who, 
though  baptized  in  infancy,  have  an  ardent  desire,  and  feel 
strong  impressions  of  the  duty  of  being  baptized  on  their  own 
faith,  be  left  to  grieve  and  lament,  because  they  cannot  have 
the  privilege,  and,  at  the  same  time,  be  allowed  to  retain  the 
right  of  communing  with  all  evangelical  Christians  ?  Or,  shall 
the  foregoing  system  of  reformation  be  openly  advocated  by  its 
friends,  and  measures  be  prudently  adopted  to  carry  it  into 
effect  ?  No  candid  and  enlightened  mind  will  hesitate  to  say 
that  the  latter  is  the  true  course.  Even  our  opposers  will  ac- 
knowledge the  consistency  of  this  course,  or  be  obliged  to  con- 
demn  their  own. 

What  if  the  cry  of  breaking  covenant  and  disturbing  the 
peace  of  the  church  is  raised  ?  What  does  it  amount  to  ?  Is 
it  to  be  supposed,  that  the  instrument  called  a  church  covenant 
binds  Christians  to  walk  with  the  church  in  their  errours,  and 
to  make  no  efforts  to  correct  them  ?  Or,  if  these  efforts  fail,  that 
they  must,  at  all  events,  continue  their  relation  to  the  church,  or 
be  liable  to  the  charge  of  breaking  covenant,  and  of  causing 
divisions  and  offences  ?  Or  does  it,  merely,  bind  us  to  walk 
with  the  church  so  far,  only,  as  they  follow  Christ,  not  prohib- 
iting us  from  reforming  errours  ;  but  requiring  us  to  do  it  when 
we  discover  them  ?  And,  if  we  cannot  peaceably  and  profitably 
remain  in  our  respective  churches,  does  it  not  manifestly  allow 
us  to  ask  to  be  dismissed,  and,  if  this  is  denied,  to  secede  ? — ; 
Surely,  "  a  brother  or  a  sister  is  not  in  bondage  in  such  a  case." 

We  may  even  be  the  innocent  occasion  of  u  divisions  and 
offences,"  provided  we  do  not  believe,  or  act,  "  contrary  to  the 
doctrine  which  we  have  learned,"  i.  e.  contrary  to  the  blessed 
doctrine  of  Christ. 

Therefore,  none  ought  to  be  deterred  from  coming  forward 
in  this  cause,  firmly  believing  it  to  be  the  cause  of  God  and 
truth,  because  of  any  connexion  which  may  exist  between 
them  and  other  churches  of  different  sentiments.  Coming  out 
on  the  side  of  truth,  is  no  breach  of  a  church  covenant ;  for  we 
did  not,  and  could  not,  bind  ourselves  to  do  wrong,  or  to  forbear 
to  do  right. 

Therefore,  I  would  make  a  solemn  appeal  to  the  enlightened 
understandings,  the  Christian  sympathies,  and  the  benevolent 
wishes  of  this  class  of  Christians,  and  admonish  and  entreat 


204  OPEN    COMMUNION. 

them  to  come  to  the  help  of  the  Lord,  and  to  "  show  themselves 
men."  The  cause  is  too  precious,  and  involves  interests  that 
are  too  dear,  to  permit  it  to  lie  buried  and  unplead. 

You  are  called  upon,  ray  brethren,  to  claim  only  a  common 
privilege  with  that  of  your  other  Christian  brethren,  and  \o  dis- 
charge a  similar  duty  to  what  they  all  d^em  binding  on  them- 
selves, viz.  labouring  for  the  defence  and  purity  of  the  gospel. 

Come  forth,  then,  with  warm,  cheerful,  and  united  hearts,  and 
labour  faithfully,  and  leave  the  event  with  God.  Who  can  tell 
but  the  Lord  will  regard  and  bless  ;  and  though  our  efforts  may 
appear  as  diminutive  and  inefficient  to  our  opponents,  as  those 
of  Nehemiah  and  the  Jews  did,  when  rebuilding  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem,  to  Sanballat  and  Tobiah,  the  work,  like  theirs,  may 
eventually  prosper. 

And  to  the  ministers  and  churches  both  of  the  Baptist  and 
Pedobaptist  denominations,  I  would  respectfully  observe,  that 
if  the  points  which  have  been  discussed  have  been  supported 
from  scripture,  it  is  of  high  importance  that  you  should  respec- 
tively receive  conviction,  and  adopt  this  plan  of  reformation 
and  union.  I  do  not  aim  any  opposition  to  you,  but  to  your 
respective  err  ours.  I  assure  you  of  my  affectionate  regard  to  you 
as  ministers  and  as  Christians.  But  believing  that  you  have 
adopted  either  the  one  or  the  other  ot  the  errours  which  have 
been  pointed  out,  1  am  under  indispensable  obligation  to  ex- 
pose them.  And  I  invite  your  candid  attention  to  my  remarks 
and  reasons.  I  ciaim  no  regard  to  any  thing  that  I  have  said, 
further  than  it  is  based  on  the  truth. 

But  if  the  scheme  is  true,  you  are  bound  to  adopt  it ;  and 
each  denomination  to  give  up  its  own  errours,  and  meet  the 
other  on  the  middle  ground.  You  will  not  fail  to  see  that  if  this 
scheme  be  true,  its  adoption  will,  at  once,  wholly  relieve  the 
subject  of  communion  and  Christian  and  ministerial  intercourse. 

May  you,  therefore,  be  enabled  respectively  to  examine  and 
to  understand  it,  and,  if  it  comports  with  the  scriptures,  to  adopt 
it ;  and,  henceforth,  to  become  one  in  affection  and  practice,  as 
you  belong  to  one  Lord,  and  are  animated  by  one  hope  of  the 
high  and  heavenly  calling. 

To  readers  in  general,  who  have  not  yet  adopted  the  foregoing 
scheme  of  baptism  and  communion,  1  would  earnestly  recom- 
mend a  patient  and  candid  investigation  of  the  subject ;  a  dili- 
gent comparing  of  every  thing  with  the  scriptures  ;  and  fervent 
prayer  for  divine  direction.  And  as  you  receive  the  light,  walk 
in  it,  ascribing  all  the  glory  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ  oiu 
Lord. 

THE  END. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUB  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WIU.   BE  ASSESSED   FOR    FAILUIW:  Tn   7 
THIS  BOOK  ON   thc  Wl^JT  E  TO  RETURN 

W.LL  ,MCRw"  ;oESO  C««  «m'?E  PENALTY 
DAY  AND  TO  si  on  „J  J  °N  ™E  F°URTH 
OVERDUE.  °N    THE    SEVENTH    DAY 


— QECLjl2J8SB 


\ 


*P 


LD  21-100ro-7,'40  (6936s) 


£s\Zo 


YB  29192 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


I 


